Anyone who claims God is unlikely to exist is not an atheist

Thanks ConCon: "The definition does not state a lack of belief. It states a lack of belief in god. Those last two words are essential, because they give the sentence an entirely different meaning."I agree. If those last two words were not included then we wouldn't know exactly what someone lacked belief in. I'm not stating that atheism means to simply lack belief in general as if i cannot have any beliefs about anything if I'm an atheist. I'm stating that I cannot have beliefs about God's existence if I'm an atheist. I can be aware of all kinds of things about God as people describe God but I'd have to remain in a suspension of belief until I am convinced of God's existence or non-existence. Con is asserting that a lack of belief in god is exclusive to rejecting that God exists. This is not what lack of belief in God means, Hence the phrase: "Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." Disbelief/denial and lack of belief are mutually exclusive. To lack belief in God is to hold no beliefs in relation to God. Which means, I do not believe that God is red, angry, likely to exist, or unlikely to exist. positive belief in God: God is love, God is red, God is angry, God existsNegative belief in God: God is man-made, God is unlikely, God is illogical, God does not exist Con: Believing IN something is a positive assertion. It implies a faith on a specific position.Yes, I agree with this and it is pricesly what I'm using to support my case. Believing in something is to have an assertion on it's nature. However, that assertion can be a negative or a positive. For example, I believe my Brother has no money. My Brother tells me has money but I believe he is lying and in fact has very little or no money. I believe it's very unlikely my Brother has money. In this case, I am believing in something; I'm believing in the abscence of money. I am applying a negative attribute to the status of my Brother's financial situation. To lack belief that my Brother has money is to not assert that he doesn't have money: Until I see the money, I will not believe my Brother has money, however, it's equally possible he does have money so I will not assert that he doesn't.This is the same with the God argument: I believe God is unlikely to exist. People tell me God exist, however, I have the belief that they are wrong and God most likely does not exist. In this case, I'm putting my faith into then negative assertion that God doesn't exist. As you can see, to claim God is unlikely IS to believe in God. It's to believe in God's non-existence.Unlikely: (definition) not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable Unlikely is an adjective. Adjective: (definition) a word naming an attribute of a noun, such as sweet, red, or technical.Premise 1: Unlikely is an adjectivePremise 2: An adjective is an attributePremise 3: An attribute is a specific thingConclusion: Unlikelihood is a specific thingPremise 1: Believe is to accept that something is truePremise 2: Believing in a specific thing means accepting that that specific thing is truePremise 3: Unlikelihood is a specific thingPremise 4: To believe God is unlikely to exist is to believe a specific thing in relation to GodPremise 5: Atheism is the lack of belief in God Conclusion: To believe God is unlikely is to not be an atheist. Con uses Richard Dawkin's 7 point scale to argue that lack of belief means you can be skeptical or %100 certain that God doesn't exist and still lack belief. This assertion conflicts with the very definition of denialDenial: a statement that something is not trueIf you know God does not exist then you are stating to yourself or to others that something is false. This is what it means to deny something. Aheism.org explicitly states that atheism is not a denial of God it is a lack of belief in God so one cannot be a strong atheist. They can only be a strong anti-theist. In regards to Richard Dawkin's scale, the whole thing is an inaccurate depicition of belief or non-belief.1. Strong believer - Knowing God exists/ Believing God exists and being certain (Also known as a Gnostic Theist)2. De facto believer - Believing God exists without %100 certainty (also known as an agnotic theist. I don't see why Richard adds to the confusion by creating a whole new titles)3. Weak believer - Still invsestigating but leaning towards believing As you can see, #3 -- the weak believer -- is in a state of suspension of belief. They are making no assertions as to whether God exists or not even though evidence is leaning toward yes. The investigation is pending. Therefore, this person is not a believer. They are an atheist; They lack belief in God. So how can Richard call #3 a believer of any kind?4. agnostic5. weak atheist - still investigating but Leaning towards the belief that God doesn't exist#5 is in the exact same state of non-belief as #3. They are both still investigating the existence of God whilst in a state of suspension of belief. Even though evidence is starting to prove God is made-up, #4 still holds no negative belief because it's still plausible that God exists6. de facto atheist - Believing God does not exist without being %100 certain. (Also known as an agnostic atheist)7. Strong atheist - Knowing God does not exist/believing God does not exists with %100 certainty (also known as a gnostic atheist)However, where does the anti-theist fit into all this? It makes more sense that anyone who believes God does not exists is labeled an anti-theist because it describes their objections to God's existence. Here's how the scale should look1. Gnostic theist: investigation concluded - I believe God does exist - I'm not wrong - let's take this to trial2. Agnositic theist: Still investigation - I believe God does exist - It's unlikely I'm wrong3. Atheist: still investigating. Evidence is leaning toward theism. Suspension of belief remains4. Agnostic: Investigaion concluded. - No one will/can know if God exists or not5. Implicit atheist: Unaware of God. No investigation or opinion. (usually babies, infants or people that don't care)6. Atheist: still investigating - evidence is leaning toward anti-theism. Suspension of belief remains7. Anti -theism: Still investigating - I believe God does not exist - It's unlikely I'm wrong8 .Anti-theism: Invetsigation concluded - I believe God does not exist - I'm not wrong - let's take this to trialAs you can see, someone who lacks belief in something is either in a state of suspension of belief due to equal plausibility or in a state of lack of belief due to indifference or unawareness You don't pursue a suspect with prejudice until you believe they are guilty. Just like you don't rule out a suspect unless you believe they are innocent. Once you know they are guilty or innocent then you stop the investigation and bring them to trial. If you think a God is unlikely to be Guilty you wouldn't be prusuing him. You'd no longer hold a suspension of belief. Your belief would now reside in the presumed innocence of God existence. God is guilty of existing: It is unlikey God is innocent. Further investigation is pointless as we are certain God is guiltyGod is not guilty of existing: due to lack of evidence we were unable to rule either way, however, you did not prove God's innocence so it is reasonable to believe God is guilty, further investigation may have proved this. God is Innocent of existing: It is unlikely God is guilty. Further investigation is pointless as we are certain God is innocentAs I've demonstrated from the above example, stating that God is unlikely to exists is the equivalent to passing conviction. To pass conviction on something you must have invested beliefs IN that something. Atheism is the lack of beleif IN God. Therefore, to pass conviction on to the status of God's existence is to believe IN God I have addressed and contended every one of Con's arguments and I have supplied further arguments to support my case. I look forward to Con's rebuttal