Atheism is a lie.

'dictionaries do not define things absolutely'. Indeed they don't, however you appear to be claiming God is literally anything you want it to be. God may be undefined to you, however we do have a definition of God which requires that it be sentient. If you wouldn't agree with this, then you would be calling simply a process or law God. The creator of the universe could simply be a general thermodynamic rule that brought things into existence. This would not warrant calling the law a God. An Atheist is not saying that he believes nothing brought the universe into existence, but simply that it was not performed by a sentient creator. If I were to call an apple a banana, it wouldn't mean an apple is a banana. Now it could be with your logic that an apple is only an apple to me. It is a banana to someone else. But such an argument would normally be laughed out of the room. Indeed if there is a God, it would be impossible to define it, however we have defined it. If what you believe in doesn't fall under the definition of God, you can call it something else. You appear to be saying 'checkmate Atheists, you claim you don't believe in God, but my version of God is Newtons first law, so in fact you do!'. Clearly I don't understand what God concept you are talking about, considering it is YOUR concept. If your version of God is not compatible with what is generally accepted, maybe you ought to call it something else. 'One can only assume disbelief on the mere conjecture of likelihood based on personal experience.' Again completely wrong, likelihood is not based on personal experience at all. If I win the lottery with one ticket, and lose it with another, it isn't a 50/50. No personal experience is required to say that a God is an unlikely cause of the universe. Without evidence, everything is equally unlikely, and so we should believe nothing until we have just cause. 'Does not all of it rely on...your subjective imagination of whatever you believe to be "God"?' Only if what appears before us is what we generally define as God. People don't generally define God as non sentient, and definitions are anything we say they are. If we are faced with what you call a 'God', we wouldn't call it a God because you appear to have a different definition to the rest of us. 'Dont ever let an atheist say "your God is imaginary"' And... why not? It is much more likely that whatever you believe in is imaginary than that the laws of physics are wrong. The laws of physics are tried and tested, which can't be said of this God, and so imaginary is the most logical conclusion. If I said the dead speak to me, it is likely in my head too. It is far more likely that I'm imagining it, than the dead coming back to life. 'he attempted obfuscation of the TRUTH, can be readily discerned by my opponents claim that " We are not replacing God with anything,.... " Yet only a few lines down.. he goes on to say "Well a God is simply an idea someone had to explain something"' Now this is just nonsense. We don't replace God with anything because we have no explanation for the beginning of the universe. God is an idea someone had, and an Atheist says 'I don't know'. It would only be replacing it if the Atheist were to give a different idea, which they don't. I have plenty of reasons to not believe in God because there is no evidence. Logic dictates that we believe things when we have evidence. I take it you don't the moon is made of cheese, although at this particular moment in time it could be. Just because it could be, that doesn't mean one should believe it. I don't know where you came to the conclusion that I don't think I exist. Our existence is extraordinarily unlikely, but we only believe it happened because we have evidence and proof. Just because something can happen, that doesn't warrant its belief. If we had no way of knowing if we existed, then I'd say the same about us. However we do have proof, and so the obvious conclusion is that we do exist. 'ONE possibility out of all those other possibilities will be TRUE' True, however this does not warrant us picking one of those possibilities for the sake of it. If you role a dice and someone calls 'six', that is one possibility. However what justification does he have to call six? There is no reason for him to call six, even though it has to land on one number. The same applies to this. Just because one possibility out of man MUST happen, that does not mean we should guess any. If you were asked if it were likely to be the number six rolled, you would say no. It is extremely unlikely that your guess is correct. As a result if someone said 'Its going to be six', it wouldn't be irrational to say 'No it isn't' because 5 out of 6 times you would be right. Now you would be silly to do it in this case considering 1/6 times you will lose. However imagine it was a trillion sided dice. Now saying no it isn't seems like a much better choice. As for the straw man, I apologise I did misunderstand you and please ignore what I said, thanks for the clarification. However you do claim it is faith that leads to Atheism which is still wrong because Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. To call it a belief would be like saying 'Not collecting stamps is a hobby' or as Bill Maher put it 'Abstinence is a sexual position'. As a result to call to a belief is very misleading. Atheists have a lack of belief, not a belief. ' So science doesn't disprove God,,,yet contradicts God. This sounds like a bunch of nonsense' Well a contradiction is just a logical incompatibility between two things. A logical incompatibility does not equal disproving, as logical incompatibilities can often just mean our science is wrong. Again you say God is undefined, I disagree, God is defined extremely broadly, and any deviation from that should not be called God. God could NOT be anything. Much like a car can not be anything. Just because you want to use a word for everything, that does not mean the definition changes. Science contradicts God because of the general acceptance that God is outside the laws of physics, which would not make sense from a scientific perspective. Science is not a tool for finding things, it is a tool for explaining things. Explaining God is impossible if God is outside scientific rules, hence the contradiction. Just because you want God to mean this, that, and the other, that doesn't mean everyone else is wrong when they use it with its most common definition.