if you cannot definitively _prove_ there is no God, then is it not just your _belief_ that there is no God?
We've been over that many times in the Senate Jae, as I'm sure you must remember. The old "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so atheism is just another belief system" fallacy is very old, and very discredited.
1. You don't need to prove that something definitely doesn't exist in order to lack a belief that it exists
. For example, I don't need to prove that Harry Potter doesn't exist before rationally stating that I'm an "a-harrypotterist". It's not that I "believe Harry Potter to be fictional", it's that I lack belief in Harry Potter
. I act in the world as if Harry Potter does not exist. It is as close to KNOWING that something doesn't exist, as we can get.
This is what we call the "default position". A total lack of belief pending evidence to support belief.
2. You cannot prove that ANY imaginary thing "does not exist". It's impossible to prove that things "don't exist". Thus the question of whether one can "prove that god doesn't exist" is fallacious and irrelevant anyway.
3. Stating that "atheism is just a belief" is technically incorrect (as noted in post #63) but it is also logically fallacious in that it implies an EQUIVALENCE between the belief that god exists (irrational, based upon zero evidence) and the atheist stance, which is that we lack belief in gods. Because there's no evidence that there are such things as gods. (logical, rational, etcetera.)
And the two are not equivalent in any way. One is pure rationalism, the view that until some shred of evidence is presented to suggest the existence of a thing... one shouldn't believe in it. And the other is pure irrationality, the idea that one can believe in any darn thing, regardless of whether there's any evidence or not.
Belief in the Christian god (or the muslim god, judaic god, whatever) is exactly... and I do mean EXACTLY equivalent to belief in the tooth fairy. Or Zeus. Or Odin, Thor, Anubis, Typhon, Hermes, the Grinch... Batman...
They all have the same amount of evidence in their favour. Zilch.