va·lid·i·tyDictionary result for validity
/vəˈlidədē/Submit
noun
the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.

Atheists are people who do not believe in god or gods. It is validated by its very definition.

A counter argument to what? You have not said anything.

@ Everyone Else

Warning: Y'awl watch out, the tree is stomping through.

@ matheist

I have found in my many decades of life that no person is capable of writing/speaking anything of substance without offending someone somewhere sometime. I have become much like Christopher Hitchens. I may not purposefully attempt to offend anyone, but if I do, I do not care. If you find something offensive, the problem is yours, not mine. I have also adapted Stephen Fry’s outlook, “You’re offended? So the fuck what?” Arakish — “Only YOU have the power to give any word, phrase, sentence, number, anything the power to offend YOU.”

If I happen to write down my feelings and opinions and any offend you, "So the Fuck what?" Remember: You are the one who came here.

Here are MY official definitions since ANY LANGUAGE is not your first mental priority. Many here may agree with my official definitions, but not all may.

• Agnostic – This means nothing more than "without knowledge." I am agnostic in there are many topics of knowledge I do not know. Thus, I am without that knowledge, thus I am partially agnostic. I cannot put this any simpler.
• Atheist – If translated literally, this means "without god." However, in today's terminology, atheism actually means "a lack of or disbelief in any claims of the existence of any deity."
• Anti-theist – This one, in my definition, means exactly as it says; anti- = "against," theist = "belief in one god." Or better, "against belief in any deity." I prefer this definition because it still does not require the "burden of proof" on my part. Just because I am against the belief in any deity, does not mean I have to prove it. Very similar to the atheism definition.
• Anti-religionist – This one is exactly as it says: "against religion." Again, the "burden of proof" is not mine to prove why I am against religion.
• Apistevist – lacking blind faith; one who does not rely on religious blind faith in order to discern facts.

An official definition of what you are:

“Religious Absolutist – anyone belonging to and possessing an inexorable belief in any religion because of their inability to utilize critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought, due to the Abrahamic absolutist beliefs, and is truly applicable to any inexorable religious believers, especially the worst subset, Apologists.”

And the official definition of what you are failing miserably at wanting to be:

“Religious Absolutist Apologist – a dastardly subset of the Religious Absolutists who practices apologetics, which is the assumption of presupposed conclusions that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and actual information and reality, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas justifying their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, through the use of beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney-ass pleas, due to an indoctrinational conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.”

An official explanation of what has been done to you in the two threads you started:

“It is the Religious Absolutists we need to lobotomized with critical thinking, logical and deductive reasoning, and rational and analytical thought to point out their failures at fact-checking themselves, their logical fallacies, presupposed assumptive assertions, and confirmation bias. Not to mention having to deal with their out right lies and incapacity for any intellectual thought and self-induced retardation of their mental faculties.”

An official list of how one can spot a Religious Absolutist and they only need match just ONE:

1. They LIE without ever thinking about the veracity of their statement.
2. They LIE without ever providing any evidence of their statement.
3. They LIE by believing inexorably everything they state, regardless of how inaccurate.
4. They LIE by being absolute in their statements (either I believe you or I am worthless scum).
5. They LIE by using beguiling dialectical semantics.
6. They LIE by using distorted and perverted data.
7. They LIE by creating irrational excuses.
8. They LIE by utilizing whiney-ass pleas.
9. They LIE by not realizing why they need to defend their beliefs.
10. They LIE by utilizing presupposed conclusions with no evidence.
11. They LIE by making accusations they never apologize for even when they are proven wrong.
12. They LIE by changing the subject.
13. They LIE by taking text out of context and twisting and perverting said text to fit their presupposed confirmation bias.
14. They LIE by shifting the burden of proof.

Some of the official points needed to prove religion is Pure Evil.

• ANY ideology that cannot suffer criticism is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that resorts to mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that supports the eternal damnation and torment of non-believers is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that presupposes its believers are superior to all others is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that protects its members from criminal prosecution is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that supports the demoralization and bigoted hatred of others is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that states we are to obey and believe as we are told is inherently evil.
• ANY ideology that psychologically terrorizes its children by telling them they are born evil/sinful, born of evil/sin, born into evil/sin, born from evil/sin, and must have an imaginative Sky Faerie and Magic Lich Virgin to save them is inherently evil.

An official explanation of “The Burden of Proof” I have synthesized from a few sources.

“The Burden of Proof (Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.) shall forever lie with those who make the claims about anything. Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.” If you propose the existence of something, anything, you MUST follow the Scientific Method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe your preposterous claims. Hearsay (personal experience) is the worst possible form of any kind of evidence. ALL religious texts are nothing more than 100% hearsay. Thus, I have no reason to believe any religious text as any kind of proof.”

For a primer (and web portal) about the Scientific Method, use this Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method. See the sections of “See also,” “Notes,” “References,” “Further reading,” “Bibliography,” and/or “External links.”

An official list of what you Religious Absolutist have already done:

Murdered, Raped, Tortured, Lied, Extorted, Sacrificed, Ravaged, Swindled, Exploited, Plundered, Abused, Coerced, Pillaged, Tormented, Harassed, Rampaged, Insulted, Endangered, Threatened, Oppressed, Persecuted, Committed Genocidal Ethnic Cleansing, Mutilated Genitalia, Enslaved, Molested and Raped Children, Corrupted, …in the name of God for centuries around the world to spread such a theological message.

But I am the one going to Hell for not believing in your bullshit?

An official list of what you Religious Absolutists would still be doing if us secularists did get laws passed:

Murder, Rape, Torture, Lie, Extort, Sacrifice, Ravage, Swindle, Exploit, Plunder, Abuse, Coerce, Pillage, Torment, Harass, Rampage, Insult, Endanger, Threaten, Oppress, Persecute, Commit Genocidal Ethnic Cleansing, Mutilate Genitalia, Enslave, Molest and Rape Children, Corrupt, …in the name of God to spread your bullshit theological message.

Yet I am still the one going to Hell for not believing your bullshit?

And an official statement I have made about Islam:

“Of course, the biggest hurdle to now fight is Islam. However, how do you fight against a religion that literally threatens those who do not believe with real, true physical harm and death? Islam is literally a militacracy. It is not actually a religion. It is an ideology completely bent on wiping out the human species except for those who accept its maniacal totalitarian tyranny. Islam should not be thought of as a religion, nor should it enjoy the protection in the USA as a religion. Islam is actually a method of psychological terrorism and warfare masquerading as a religion. Until those fighting against Islam as I do realize this simple fact, Islam is going to be damned near invincible. And it is spreading across the globe like a pandemic. Treat Islam as the mental disorder and disease that it is. NOT as a religion.”

And a closing statement on Islam. Islam is nothing more than a pathetic excuse for a bunch of man-bullies to show their superiority because they are actually whiney-ass cowardly pussies.

rmfr

EDIT: had to fix a list