Except that atheism is not just the belief that god does not exist (which is strong atheism) but also the absence of belief in a deity (weak atheism).
Most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists. That is, if you asked their views, they would potentially respond, "I neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity; there is no evidence either way. Pending the discovery of evidence in favor of existence, however, I hold-as-true (but do not consider true) the logical default of non-existence).
You don't get to redefine the terms. That's called a straw man argument, and has the effect of both proving you an idiot and negating your argument.
Actually, the burden of proof is on the believer, not the non-believer. There is more evidence for there not being a god than there is for there being one.
And it is not a religion, nor is it a belief system. Atheism is non-belief, period.
There is no belief at all. That's what you're not understanding.
This is what they could not swallow or admit that they have a belief system to believe in the other. We human have to believe in something to move our body. They studied science and use terminology of words of their choices. A manipulation of facts to suits their convenience.
Wrong. Actually there are a lot more than 2 possibilities. There are infinite possibilities. Here's a few more:
3) Aliens created us as an experiment
4) We are actually in the Matrix
5) This is all a Dream
6) The entire pantheon of Egyptian gods exist.
And I could go on. Atheism is a lack of belief that any god exists. Using your logic wouldn't that also mean that not collecting coins is a hobby? While it may be true that you can't prove a negative, there are infinite negatives that thus cannot be pr oven. For example you cannot prove that Zeus, Odin, Osiris or any of the thousands of other gods that various cultures have chosen to believe in don't exist. You can't even prove that there aren't invisible pink elephants flying over the surface of Neptune. However, when someone makes such an outlandish claim the burden of proof is rightfully on them to provide proof, not on the person that they want to get to believe their nonsense. There are quite literally millions of propositions that have absolutely no proof that each and every one of us dismiss without a second thought every day. From Bigfoot to aliens to the Loch Ness Monster. Why should atheists spend anymore time than that on your delusions which are equally unsupported by even the tiniest shred of evidence? So no, the fact that we don't believe is not, in any way, equivalent to your belief.
Is atheism just a faith with no rational basis?
