Negative Atheism is Correct

Rebuttal:---Con, Rd2: "defining atheism: Atheism is the rejection of the existence all deities"Contrast with "Negative atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of any deities." This definition fits POSITIVE Atheism, NOT Negative Atheism.---Con, Rd2: "Atheists aren't necessarily scientists or philosophers. Atheists can support science, logic, and philosophy, but atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity."True. And?---Con, Rd2: "[A]theism fails to provide a solid basis for studying God and religion because of a lack of science and strict methods in history, archaeology, and other fields to back up many atheist claims."I fail to see how a religious worldview would inherently promote and provide science, "strict methods in history", and archaeology. Science doesn't come from a religion or a lack of religion -- science is secular, and has nothing to do with religion. As such, this point makes no impact either way. However, religiosity may have negative impacts on willingness to do scientific research and to open-mindedly accept new results, though research on this issue isn't necessarily conclusive yet. In addition, atheists are generally more intelligent, suggesting that religion survives in part because of ignorance [1][2], or merely because it "feels" right.---Con, Rd2: "[W]ho is to say that science is the only path to understanding reality? Who's to say that philosophy gives us all the answers?"If you want to offer an alternative path to knowledge than empirical study, please do. IF you want to offer an alternative to logic, please do. Otherwise, I'll continue to believe in their effectiveness and predictive power, because both have worked pretty well in the past.---Con, Rd2: "More importantly, how can you prove the existence of a being beyond the natural senses? You can't, but it doesn't imply that he doesn't exist. How can you disprove him? You can't. Science is only concerned with what is observable, not anything related to the supernatural."Look to my definition of deities, or "supernatural entities capable of interacting with the natural universe." If a deity has not interacted with the universe and would have no evidence to support its existence, and through Occam's Razor we would reject it as unnecessary. (Or else we would believe in every single deity that hasn't interacted with the universe.) And if a deity HAS interacted with the universe, then it would either be (1) unobservable, and go back to the first point, or (2) observable, and thus provable or disprovable through science. As such, the lack of evidence of deities allows us to make the conclusion that deities do not exist, or, if they do, that we don't have evidence for them.---Con, Rd2: "Atheism cannot ensure that God doesn't exist, therefore atheism is just a belief without evidence."Negative atheism doesn't NEED to show that God doesn't exist, because negative atheism doesn't need to disprove ANY gods. Only if you provide evidence FOR a god is Negative Atheism obligated to disprove it.---Con, Rd2: "Atheists can support their views with scientific evidence, but science doesn't necessarily support atheism. In other words, science and reason stand on their own, not necessarily implying that atheism is to be chosen as well."I don't disagree. However, this doesn't prove negative atheism wrong in any way.---Summary:My opponent has failed to provide sufficient reasons to believe in the existence of a god, and as such, Pro prevails.---References:[1] http://www.religionnews.com...[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...