I do not do "believing."
I defy you to show me any evidence that there are no gods.
At best, you will be able to offer variations on two themes...theists can produce no gods for examination...and there is no need for gods.
NEITHER of those in any way is evidence that there are no gods.
I understand that atheists pretend they come to stuff like "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" using reason, logic, and science...
...but Gonzo, we both know that is a joke.
Right?
...aaaaaaaand we're back to our regularly scheduled programming.
While you have repeatedly been shown the various arguments against the existence of gods and have summarily dismissed them out of hand without once acknowledging or responding to them (and denying they even exist), even then, you simply transfer these "guesses", "ideas", "thoughts," and "summations" into your cherry-picked definition of belief.
This is what we call "a circular argument": you claim atheists have no go argument, so that means they are operating on blind guesses, which you call "belief," "faith," whatever, and therefore atheism is really just a faith.
When presented with these arguments (think mbig here), you ignore them.
When discussing definitions you cherry pick a very specific definition for one word and claim this is the only definition of this word allowed; therefore, anyone who uses this word can only be using it the way you say it can be used.
When backed into a corner, you are forced to admit that some assumed minority of atheists don't actually use this word, but it doesn't matter for them because they obviously must be guessing in the dark anyway since they don't have an argument because you ignore their arguments (circle back to 1 - they can't have an argument because they are only guessing/they have to be guessing because they don't have an argument).
When proclaiming it must be a majority of people who actually use this word, you admit those online you have talked to fall outside of this majority, you know, in the very specific forum where their actual thoughts can be sussed out and they start out on guard against people like you who put words in their mouths and heap meaning and nuance onto words when it's not called for. The supposed majority you know offline (anecdotal, no proof for this) just so happen to use the word "belief" and therefore all of their arguments are nothing but blind guesses (circle back to 2 - they are engaging in belief - which is blind guessing - because they say they are; if they don't say so, it's because they are fooling themselves and they really mean to use the word "Belief". Circle back to 1 - they have to be guessing, because they don't have an argument).
When you get pinned to the wall on one of these, you slink out and start down the other path, where you eventually end up pinned to the wall again, only to slink out and go back to the first. Rinse and repeat.
Unfortunately for you, I have a pretty good memory, and I can go back and quote you word-for-word and point out the contradictory things you say, which makes your slippery wriggling transparent. When you deny it with the evidence in the post you are quoting/responding to, it makes you look even less credible than you already are.
And yet.... here you are, still persisting with your bad reasoning, selective definitions, anecdotes, unsupportable claims, and circular arguments. Does it feel good, Frank? Do you like flopping in the wind? Because, I'll tell you, very few things make me feel better in life than making a first class BS'er look like a fool.
