If you find claims for the existence of gods unwarranted to accept, then it's reasonable to assume there aren't any gods. I think most atheists are hesitant to say they believe there are no gods because that word "believe" means something different to religionists than it does to non-religionists.

For religionists, belief is unmovable. Once you believe, that's it, and nothing can change or destroy such a position. For the non-religionist, belief is temporary, a position held as long as it's viable.

So due to these contrasting views of belief, we atheists most certainly don't believe there are any gods, but if we were to say that, a religionist will hear that we are dogmatic and faith based like them, which leads to bullshit like "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".

Any apparent unease or waffling by an atheist in light of the question "do you believe in god?" should not then be seen as an attempt to deceive or obfuscate, but rather as an attempt to convey "belief" in a way that won't be misunderstood, and thus exploited by religionists.

Naked assertions and outright lies. Must be a believer

The rock argument isn't even an argument, and the insertion of "person" into the definition is completely unnecessary. You can't accept or object if you can't think; therefore, citing an action in a definition that has a prerequisite of 'ability to think' excludes the application of the definition to anything lacking the ability to think.

Although it might sound satisfying to have these people's names, I doubt if they'll ever move on to other jobs, especially when they're so protected where they're at.

I would be tempted to sue for big money. Donate the money to a charity, or to really steam them, to the FFRF, ACLU, and others. ;)

CA has a fucked up system with these ballot initiatives. Thankfully not every state has such a system, so I'm not worried about extreme fantasies about being denied marriage rights or anything else.

Gay marriage is an equal rights issue, and that alone makes me support it. I don't need a 'booga-booga, atheists are next' article to get on board.

The argument, fallacious or not, will soon be moot. Do people under 25 require churches for social connections? No, they go to their, as Dennis Leary puts it, "facey-pages and their bliggety blogs." You have Meetup.com, you have your various local social clubs, sports organizations, neighborhood block parties, and so forth. Who's going to be relying on their church for a sense of community in a generation or two? How many seriously do now?

I don't understand this quibbling over phrasing. Regardless of how you do it, if you can frame one group as lesser or deficient in any way, the rest of the evil follows.

Right, like how negroes in Early America were only 3/5 actualized without white skin, or how Jews in Nazi Germany weren't actualized without pure Aryan blood flowing through their veins.

My mother is an odd one. She believes, but her belief is rather amusing. She's very critical of most religious people, she'll NEVER accept the Bible over hard facts or scientific discoveries, she stopped going to church when I was about 7 because she knew her Bible better than the minister (who kept getting things wrong) and felt everyone there were "goofy" and "hypocritical". One of her great lines was, "where does it say in the Bible I have to be in a church for my prayers to count? Brobia!" (I have no idea what word in Italian that's supposed to be, since the Italian my mom knows is some weird Sicilian, but I've come to understand it's meaning is comparable to "bullshit")

She simply likes her belief but doesn't pawn that crap off on me, which is nice, but of course she can't help talking to me as if I'm part of the club, like letting me know she'll pray that I do well on a job interview, like I'd care. Imo, her whole belief thing is silly, but for the most part harmless. I think because of her, and my experience with people who indulge with the booze and drugs but remain functional, I've come to view religion as a vice which I personally don't care for, but I don't have too much of a problem with if people do it responsibly. Her belief makes her happy and she doesn't bother anyone with it, just like my friends with their vices, so be it.

I would have to say VJack, you have to tell your mom you won't accept any of her books unless she agrees to read one of yours. Fair is fair.

I am, in fact, lacking cancer, but who the fuck talks like that?

Sometimes there's technically correct and applicably correct, and to say you're "lacking belief" is not applicably correct for it is understood by most that when you say you lack anything, you're expressing a deficiency; therefore, unless you feel deficient as an atheist, no atheist should say they lack belief.

As for spirituality, I don't see your point. The point was about how an atheist who creates a religion isn't an atheist anymore, right? It's possible for an atheist to accept spirituality and be an atheist. This was my point earlier about wishing I could distinguish myself from the woo atheists, for I'm an atheist because I find no reason to accept any god claims, but someone else could be an atheist because they have a special sense there are no gods, or that's what their tea leaves tell them, or their belief in The Force won't allow for the existence of deities.

There are plenty of roads to atheism. In fact, I value the path more than the destination, for I care more for people being critical thinkers than becoming atheist by any means.