Atheism is a philosophy of negation, devoid of an argument. Why do then atheists continue their harping? [Spirituality & Religion]

@texasdaddydom Burden of proof is on the religions and they've yet to produce it. Hence to begin negating something that hasn't yet been proved is in itself a futile exercise.

To negate that which you believe doesn't exist is illogical beyonf belief but atheists don't understand that.

blanket statement about people religious or atheists is illogical. All I see you doing is harping about atheists saying they are the ones harping what's your point

@texasdaddydom Good non sequitur when you cannot refute the philosophical point here. Negation of something you believe doesn't exist is highly illogical. Please refer to Sam Harris saying atheism is a philosophy of negation. These words aren't mine. Thank you.

how does asking what is your point a non sequitur? after pointing out exactly what you are doing? do you even know the meaning of the words you are using or are you just bloviating... was not familiar with Harris but he is only one person with an opinion he doesn't speak for all atheists just as any religious person does not speak for all religions. Blanket statements like " why do (insert group here) do something (i don't agree with or is bad stupid or evil)it is perfectly valid to question the assertion that they do in fact all do that.

@texasdaddydom This is a common perceptual error. It can be obliquely proved that (e.g. God) doesn't exist by deducing from all possibility. If a belief sans God meets its onuses, then all else is false.

People have believed in gods for hundreds of thousands of years, why is the onus on them and not the atheist who has come up with this new viewpoint contrary to the ancient consensus. @texasdaddydom

@MrMonnyPenny

[quote]People have believed in gods for hundreds of thousands of years[quote][/quote][/quote]

[i]That[/i] is a logical fallacy known as argument from tradition or appeal to antiquity.
Just because something has traditionally been believed does not independently justify that belief.

The reason that the onus is on theists to substantiate their claim is because [i]they[/i] are making the positive claim.
The atheist is simple applying good skepticism and saying "since you have not sufficiently supported your claim that a god exists, i am justified in rejecting that claim".

@texasdaddydom It's not actually impossible to prove that something does not exist, in general. The technique for such a proof is called reductio ad absurdum, i.e. contradiction. The technique is as follows:
Assume statement P is true.
Follow the logical implications of P being true.
Come to an absurd statement.
Conclude P cannot be true.
Here, statement P = x exists.

That's all abstract, but let's have an example. I will prove to you that there is no real number x such that
3 divided by 0 = x.
Proof technique: Assume such a number, x, exists.
Then 3/0 = x. By the multiplication property of equality, we can multiply both sides of our equation by 0.
0 * (3/0) = 0x.
Tf we look at the left-hand side, we have divided 3 by a number and then multiplied the result by that same number. Since division and multiplication are inverse operations, and the assumption that x exists implies that 3/0 is defined, we get that 0 * (3/0) = 3.
On the right-hand side, we have 0x, which equals 0 no matter what x equals by the zero property of multiplication.
Hence, 3 = 0, which is absurd. Hence, it cannot be true that x exits.