Ant, you're always making attacks against atheism that aren't defended on this forum.

Being atheistic towards the personal god of the bible is justified. Being agnostic towards a naturalistic deity is justified. Both positions are defensible, and depend entirely on how you define god, or what type of god is proposed. I'm an atheist regarding the personal god of the bible. I'm an atheist regarding Zeus. I'm agnostic regarding a naturalistic deity. These gods are not the same,

What's more, stop ignoring my posts when I say that it is philosophy that has jurisdiction on many of the claims you attack. Not science.

Atheism also DOES simply mean non-belief. It's not a rationalization or an evasion. It's the truth. There are ontologically positive beliefs that supplement atheism, and those beliefs are what you are actually attacking. You could support your position by saying that there are some ontologically positive beliefs that go hand-in-hand with atheism. I'm not sure what those would be, but if you think of some, then pay lip service to the distinction.

ant wrote:You're Santa Claus and giant banana are just as ridiculous as you.
I think a banana is more open minded than you are.

You make me laugh. You really do.

I don't think you understood Dexter's point on the burden of proof. I say that because you make fun of him instead of tackling his argument. His argument is justified, and you haven't given a direct reply.