Why atheism is a belief.

[Mister Agenda]

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

Agnostic atheists are ikely to say that, yes.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Most of us do think that a lack of evidence that something is true is a good reason not to believe it's true, go on.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

So you're saying that our problem is not believing in something because the evidence is not only not available but may in fact be unobtainable? Would you elaborate on that please? It sounds like a strength rather than a flaw.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

So basically, you're saying that not believing is the same as believing. Are you sure you thought that through?

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

The sufficient cause is that the people who are trying to convince us there is a God cannot provide evidence sufficient to back up their contention. Evidence of anything supposedly supernatural that can stand up to scrutiny would be a start: prove demons or ghosts or clairvoyance or miracles are real and you will have a starting place to build a case for God from.

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

If I find a coin on the street my inferences (not assumptions) about how it got there will be based on what I know about coins, how they're made, and how they can wind up on streets. Mathematically, existence is the set of everything. Everything requiring a cause is a property of things that exist. It is not necessarily a requirement that the set of all things that exist be subject to the same limitation. What's illogical is assuming anything about the origin of existence that isn't based on physical evidence. So far, the only causes for anything we've ever been able to figure out the cause for have been natural causes, and it is inductively sound to conclude it's natural causes, all the way down.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

We don't argue atheism isn't a belief because we have a personal preference for no god. We argue atheism isn't a belief because in the West, there is a tendency for atheists to be grammar nazis.

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

No point in waiting for our response to mock the weakness of it, eh?