Originally posted by ChickenPie
To be frank, I think you're just bull#ting to avoid the strong points I've made. You didn't even bother to rebut what I wrote. Instead, you decided to argue over the definition of atheist again.
If you want to define an atheist as someone who is without belief in God, then fine, but I don't see how that refutes the points I've made. One who is without belief in God must have had reached that point in some fashion, one reason being that the person is utterly ignorant. For example, babies are utterly ignorant, and if we're using the definition of atheist given by you, then all babies are atheists. But then there are also the educated and intelligent adults who are atheists by choice. Surely you can see the difference between a baby who is an atheist out of utter ignorance and a grown man who is an atheist because he feels it to be a logical stance? Regardless, the former realize the possibility of there being an entity who created everything; they then weigh that possibility against empirical evidence, logic, etc., and then they reach a final conclusion. Thus, my posts are for those who choose to be atheists.
Now that we understand each other... how does this not make sense to you?
Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not exist from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then that means you believe He doesn't exist.
Your argument is sound, but it can easily be used against you when applying a different religious framework from the one in which you currently believe...
Do you believe in Allah? If not, then you believe there is no Allah. Will you admit that you do not believe in Allah? If so, then disbelief in Allah is a belief in itself.
[edit on 30/7/2010 by Dark Ghost]