#unfalsifiability

"If you do or do not believe in god and do or do not repost this something will or will not happen."

Denial of on-going conspiracies can be taken as proof that said employees are “in on” whatever conspiracy they are busily denying. Usually, the more they deny, the more conspiracy theorists will take it as proof—because, well, “they would say that, wouldn’t they!” Furthermore, if people do not deny the theory, this can also be taken as proof on the grounds that “it has never been denied.”

Not believing in gods doesn’t protect you from other faith-based beliefs.

“Why should you believe in something for which there is no reason to believe? Where it becomes positively dangerous is if you start fighting with somebody else who has a different faith from yours and each of you is equally convinced that you are right and the other one is wrong. And precisely because it appeals only to faith, and not evidence, there is no way you could settle the argument other than killing each other. Whereas, if you disagree, as two scientists disagree, two scientists can sit down together, look at the evidence, and say, "Oh, I was wrong. I overlooked that bit of evidence" or, "Here's a new bit of evidence just come in which shows that my previous theory was wrong." Scientists, at least in principle, will come to an agreement when all of the evidence is in. But that's not what faith-based people do. They say, "I know I'm right. End of story." That's dangerous.”

Resorting to an argument admits there is no valid evidence.