I know there has been a huge debate over evidence between here and my last post, but there were a couple of things I wanted to address from earlier in the thread.
Great! then all the atheists can save thread space by not posting in this thread since we now know that all of you don't accept the existence of God because you see no evidence for God (evidence being undefined).
Thank you for not participating.
I
was participating. Here's my response to the OP:
I reject the idea of the existence of deity because I see no reason to hold such a belief.
You don't hold a belief in leprechauns for the same reason.
Atheism is the religion of the superiority of Man which denies the existence of a Supreme Deity.
Atheism is not a religion. At all. It's not even a system of beliefs, a way of life, or an attitude. All "atheism" is is rejecting the idea of "theism." That's all. there's no claim being made with atheism. It's simply the rejection of a belief, and the word wouldn't exist if the topic of "theism" wasn't as big as it is. That's why there's no a-leprechaunism.
This is more of an excuse to avoid debate than an argument unto itself. It rests on the notion that a negative can't be proven, thus relieving atheists of the burden of supporting their beliefs. Personally, I think it's pretty weak.
It's not an excuse to avoid debate, and there's no relieving of the burden to support our beliefs. The biggest reason, as I've stated several times, is that atheism isn't a belief. It's the lack of a belief. We have a reason for not holding a belief in theism, and that reason is that we have no reason to hold such a belief. In other words, no evidence.
To support a nonbelief in leprechauns works the same way. According to your own logic, you have a pretty weak reason for not believing in leprechauns.