Is atheism a belief?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

Well, no. You are unable to define the god you claim to believe in, nor why. Nor what it's properties, nor why you might accept such a deity or anything it might stand for or actually do.

Your problem is not that you cannot justify it to us, it is that you can't even justify it to yourself.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The problem for you is that I knew his tactic from the start, which is WHY i gave him a dictionary definition.  His quarrel is with not with me, but with the dictionary.  Too e-z. Next.

---

You seem to have this notion that I owe you something.  I don't.   Common sense is that if you know someone is predisposed to say "no" to anything you suggest to them, then at some point there is no reason to attempt to say to them anything that they will just default to "no" as a response to anyway.

You owe me nothing. 
You memory seems to be quite deficient. 
YOU objected when I said both "god" and "complexity" for the purposes HERE were undefined. 
In response all we get is this LAME shit about dictionaries. 
The fact is you cannot define complexity in a way that defines what IS and IS NOT complex enough, to require a designer. 
You also have no coherent definition of a god, which doen not incorporate the problems you were asked to explain. 
You lack of definitions means you have none, and you have failed. 

Thanks for conclusively demonstrating yet again, you're all bluster and evasion, and no substance. All hat. No cattle.

There you go. You got something right.  I owe you nothing.

You don't have to accept a definition from a dictionary, but as soon as we hit that point, there's no point in going any further.  Why?  Because it takes at least two to discuss, and as soon as you start removing objective sources, then I have no interest.  If you do, then I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to talk to you about whatever.

I know what you want, but the definition doesn't have to be static.  In the general sense,  we use words like complexity to describe things, not define them.

"This program is greater in complexity than the last program."

I'm sure that statement is easily understood.  To what it is greater in complexity is dependent because it is relational to something else.  That's when we stop thinking about complexity, and start dealing with the more intricate details.  This is what I believe you're referring to.  But one idea is not the other.  Even if I can figure the different between program #1 and program #2, the one is still greater in complexity.  Same thing if I use a word like "faster."  This car is faster than that car.  To what extent?  It depends on the subjects.

Yep, I own about 10 hats and no cattle.  Not too many cattle ranches where I live.  So now that I shared, how many hats and cattle do you own?