Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Your starting point is flawed: disbelief does NOT imply belief to the contrary. This is just a 100% factual statement: you are wrong. What irks me a little here is that I spelled out the reason why very clearly. I'll try it again: I have a jar of sweeties in front of me. Do you believe that I have an even number of sweeties in my jar? If not, does your not believing that I have an even number of sweeties imply that you believe that I have an odd number of sweeties? Or, if this doesn't convince you, how about the courtroom analogy? When a jury finds a defendant "not guilty", does that mean that the jury believe the defendant to be innocent? Not necessarily! All that is required is reasonable doubt... there may not have been sufficient evidence to justify a conviction, even if none of the jury were completely convinced of the defendant's innocence. Now, notice how we use the words "not guilty" instead of "innocent". Do you see the reason for this? Courts do not declare "we believe this man is innocent", they declare "we do not have sufficient evidence to find this man guilty". Atheists do not (necessarily) say "we believe there are no gods", they simply say "we do not have sufficient evidence to believe in god". Lack of belief, disbelief, no belief, absence of belief... however you'd like to label it, do not confuse that with "belief to the contrary". I could carry on through your ridiculous logical fallacies one by one... I mean, "belief IS theism"? No, no, no, a thousand times, no! Belief IN GOD is theism. Belief in aliens is not theism. Belief that you are an idiot is not theism. Anybody who states "atheism is theism" is either trolling or they are certifiable. Which is it, Con, are you lying or are you mad? Religiosity of science? Science is not religious, nor is it about jumping to wild unsubstantiated beliefs... science is a METHOD. It is the combination of hypothesis, controlled experiment, analysis, independently reproduced experiment, peer review and publication. It is our best shot at understanding anything about the universe around us. Science constantly checks on established scientific conclusions, refining, updating or binning old paradigms when necessary. Religion, on the other hand, venerates the musings of iron age philosophers and clings to the old like a baby holding on to his last pacifier. You say "the atheist imagines the evidence and says no". This is, with all due respect, an idiotic statement. Do you believe in green Martians in flying saucers? If not, does your lack of belief require you to imagine any evidence? You are neither required to say "there is no such thing" nor to provide evidence (imagined or otherwise), in order to state clearly and confidently "I do not believe in little green men from Mars". In all of your Round 2 offering, I can find but one sensible statement: "the theist imagines the evidence and says yes". True, that! The atheist doesn't have to do any bold imagining... the atheist simply says "I've looked at all of the so-called evidence that theists have presented and I find not a jot of it compelling". I am an atheist; I do not need to do any imagining to come to this conclusion. Theists telling me that I am employing a belief system really irk me. Are you using an active belief system complete with imagined evidence when you say that you don't believe in fairies, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Osiris, angels, devils, little green men from Mars or Russell's Teapot? I could list 1,000,000 things that you do not believe in (some of which you'll never even have heard of). Would your lack of belief in each of them constitute an active belief system of yours complete with imagined evidence to support your belief to the contrary? Of course not... you may simply say that you haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince you that there is a tooth fairy and leave it at that. You may simply say "I don't believe in Vishnu" and be left alone, without some imbecile telling you that your bold-*** assertion that there is no Vishnu (which you never claimed) is a belief system all its own, complete with imagined evidence and, to top it all, your lack of belief in Vishnu is equivalent to a belief in Vishnu! I think you'd either be annoyed at whoever was spitting this mental dribble at you or consider calling for the men in white coats! Anyhow, this has turned into a bit of a non-debate, really. Con has not presented any evidence for any god's existence, nor have they presented any explanation as to why there is no evidence - as such, I rest my case that it is more reasonable to take the position of not believing. It would be reasonable, if presented with sufficiently compelling evidence, to believe in a god... but to believe in a god without evidence is neither reasonable nor sensible.