[Starwatcher2001]

"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god"

Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend.

"What's your best atheist argument?"

I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we?

As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.

[lorriman]

"Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism."

Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God".

Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse.

But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers.

Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist):

Either you:

1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way.

Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate.

We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?

Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.

[me_me_me]

>>We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'?

Is there a god? Myabe yes, maybe no. There is no way to tell. Is there a christian god, absolutely not (same with any other religion claiming their god is the one).

I think that's the nuanced position of Dawkins that gets lumped into a bag of atheism.

[zzo38computer]

What Dawkins says is not true of all atheists. Also, there is the difference of positive and negative atheism. Dawkins also has the scale of atheism 1 to 7, and he himself ranks 6 on that scale apparently. Some religious people are good people and some non-religious people are good people. And then, there are also agnostics, ignostics, and meta-agnostics. And then, there is Tom Swiss.

In terms of your "either you: 1) 2) 3)" there is the fourth possibility that the question isn't very meaningful, and you forgot that one.

Also, some scientist and mathematics and computer programmers are religious, but some aren't, and as long as it doesn't interfere with your work, it is OK.