Why atheism is a belief.

[goodcake]

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods

This is irrelevant and does not prove or justify anything. This argument assumes its conclusion by saying you cannot disprove something which does not exist. Without providing a valid alternative (which you should have done in point 2), you're left stranded.

The burden of proof still belong to religious ones whom making the claims that there is all-powerful daddy in sky. The lack of evidence in the existence of god is relevant as to the lack of evidence in the existence of little, glowing female fairies with nipples.

Not really the burden of proof is on either side to affirm their conclusions is correct based on either proving or disproving a god, or a natural alternative(s) In the absense of an alternative, you cannot remove god validly, you only remove it based on your personal preference to do so. Atheists may claim the burden of proof is on theists, but they will only receive 'amens' from other atheists by stating this. You may maintain that this burden lays elsewhere, but until atheists accept what proof they need to provide for their position to be considered valid, they will never reach any non-atheists. This is another reason why atheism is viewed as a structured belief, in that it's a shared view which only atheists consdier to be true/valid.

2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.

Everything? Try the creation of existence.

Is this where the atheist invokes a long string of gods from Norse, Greek, Jewish, Muslim faiths to discount any worldy event which can be accounted for scientifically. These elucidate nothing.

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

What are these better explanations you speak of?

Try the bible' Genesis, Creationism and Intelligence Design - they elucidate nothing. Better explanations? Didn't you Christians contradict yourselves that your god is all-merciful, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, in which the bible differs? It's natural for people oppose the abuse condoned by god accord the bible.

You've misinterpretted what I believe. I don't have a defined god, I just have left the possibility of a god existing open. It's amazing that the vast majority of athiests think otherwise. I would guess you've based your view on a "us vs. them" mentality.

4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

You are deluded if you think science don't have potential. Science is still growing, goodcake. Science are capable of explaining things more than the bible possibility can.

You're in no position to state that apart from your personal beliefs in what science can do. It seems science has become a new religion (scientism), odd that people use it to refute god, which is a question it probably cannot, and is not looking to, answer.

Lifestyle with science doesn't sound bad. Hell, It's better lifestyle than lifestyle with limited perspective of our understanding the universe.

I've got no idea what you're saying here.

6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.

Does this refute your position? or only everyone who disagrees with you?

7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

That there are many contradcitory faiths, doesn't lend itself to meaning yours is correct.

The guy you are arguing with - he probably has point about delusion. Devil possession, for example. There aren't any demons began with - but the Vatican dimwits exorcised little girl and killed her as result. There's too many delusions like "power of prayer over modern medicine". This kind of idiocy had a lot of children abused and killed by religious dimwits.

So your view of delusion is anyone who is christian and to justify this, you take the exception to illustrate this? I have no idea how fundamentalists justify many things they do, whether it's in the name of religion or otherwise. Killing and abusing children is horrendous and these fuckers should be shot, however that these people use religion to justify their actions does not denigrate all religious people. You seem too eager to jump to conclusions using extreme examples.

There is many forms of Christianity, which proves Christians are contradict among themselves and forming new bleed of Christian stupidity like FLDS [Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]. You could argue the practice of monogamy is very unethical, in which condoned by god in the bible. Therefore, you are contradicting the bible.

Yes there are contradicting views amongst all sects of religious groups and within non-religious groups. I'm not sure what this proves. Do you think there is one prevailing (religious or non-religious) group or individual who is correct? and if so, why?