Prove There Is No God - A Challenge
If this can't be done, then atheism is a belief.
This is your first mistake. You have confused the word “belief” = a faith in a deity with “belief” = that which is strongly probable by virtue of evidence.
A lot of atheists falsely think that atheism just means "without belief” but it actually means, "No God."
This is your second mistake. The “a-“ prefix mean “without – totally lacking in”: we see it in such words as “amoral” “apart” “agnostic” and “abandon” etc.
Atheism is a positive claim that God does not exist.
This is your third mistake: it is, in fact, the equivalent of saying, “I do not believe your claim that there are gods." And here “believe” is based upon ““belief” = that which is strongly probable by virtue of evidence.”
Agnosticism is the view where they don't have an opinion either way.
Your fourth mistake. It is not that Agnostics do not have a view either way that gives rise to “agnostic” – the word is pretty self-explanatory: a- = without, Gnostic = a revelation. They are in a position where a god has not revealed themselves to them. The stand, as it were, awaiting something that may never come. They may hope for that revelation or hope that there will not be that revelation: it simply has not arrived.
Sure, some atheists like to say, "Atheism just means that we lack belief in God" but this is an attempt by modern atheists to redefine the word. The word NEVER meant that. The word always meant "No God."
Persisting in a mistake will not make it true.
I even heard some of them say, "Atheism means that we don't think there is enough evidence for God." But, this backfires too because there ARE theists out there who agree with this statement, but believe in God anyway. So, this definition gets thrown out the window too.
This is simply illogical and basically meaningless. You have created an erroneous argument, and then you have destroyed your own argument, and dance around as if that proved something – it doesn’t.
The proper meaning of "lacking belief in God"
Ah, you see – you have realised that you were wrong earlier and are now changing your definition to the one I suggested to you above.
means that you believe God is there, but you don't believe in Him.
And then you make your fifth mistake. Again you confuse the two meanings of “belief”. It would be better for you and us if you were to use “faith” to indicate a belief without evidence and “belief” that which is strongly probable by virtue of evidence.
Sort of like having a friend who betrays your trust and you lose your faith in him.
Ah, good – you start to decide that there are two meanings to the word belief, but then step back into the same erroneous path of failing to distinguish between faith in your friend and faith in a god.
This will probably go above your head but your example of “faith” in a friend has a nuance of “faith in his trustworthiness that had been previously evidenced.” Whereas, “faith” in a god has never had any evidence.
The friend still exists, but you lose your belief in your friend. So, this is why "lacking belief" backfires and actually means you DO think God is real, you just lost faith in Him.
Yet still you fail to see the difference between the two definitions of faith…
So, that leaves atheism as meaning "No God" which is a positive claim. So, any atheists out there want to defend their positive claim of "No God?"
Your question comes across as stupid. It is objectionable because you have a tone that says: “Look at me – I have already defeated you.” And yet, the whole thing comes across in a way that validates the wonderful quote:"Debating Christians on the topic of gods is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
I do not wish to be insulting, but one of the distinguishing feature of the religious is that they are poorly represented in the ranks of those who are above average intelligence. We see the hysterical, fundamentalist tribesmen that comprise the Taliban; those Pentecostals who handle snakes and get bitten and the YECs and creationists. These are the people who wallow in ignorance as their education has not equipped them for the modern world and they wish to change it back to the 14th century.
Please note, I am not saying that all Christians are thick, just that they seem to be over-represented in that demographic. I am afraid you facile arguments above have not helped alter that perception.
If you wish to debate anyone, including me, I suggest that you formulate your argument a little more logically.
I doubt that you can.