Atheism is a belief

Another theist debate another forfeit, still, thanks to my opponent for conceding his position. I will use this round to expand a bit on the previous points. Atheism's default position is its own stance on the nature of the universe, not that of theistic claims. This is important in understanding why atheism is not a statement of belief but merely a refutation of theist claims. Since it has its own rational basis, its only burden is the negation of any claim purported by those from an opposing position. To be considered, any theistic claim must have a rational basis, otherwise it is simply discarded. No justification of this is necessary, without a logical basis there is no need for rationalisation. How this works: Theist claim: God exists. Atheism: No rational basis -- discarded. Theist: The bible shows us God exists. Atheism: The source fails due to circular logic. The bible tells us God exists, we know the bible is true because God tells us so -- discarded. Theist (persistent): The bible is the infallible word of god! Atheism: There are contradictions in both historicity and how god is defined --therefore it fails. Theist: God is all powerful!! He can exist within contradictions. Atheism: Contradictions can also negate the existence of god, there is no rational basis for the claim -- therefore it fails. Theist: The bible is both truth and metaphor/analogy. Atheism: There are no set criteria for deciding what is truth and what is metaphor -- therefore it fails. And so on it goes. As can be seen, there is no statement of belief needed, no claims of faith are made, just simple rational discrediting of theist claims. Disproving the negative: "The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative." It states, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false." (Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 1) To prove then, that God does not exist, it is necessary only to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. There are many, here is just a couple. God is both merciful and just. God (being perfect) makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's due. If he is perfectly merciful however, he lets everyone off. Clearly he can't do both. The notion of a supreme being appears to be internally inconsistent. The Perfection-vs.-Creation Argument 1. If God exists, then he is perfect. 2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe. 3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants. 4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want. 5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4). 6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). http://www.secularhumanism.org... Clearly Atheism is not a belief system; it is simply the non belief in deities. There is no positive claim made, no statement of faith, no basis on belief.