Atheism is a lie.

A deity by definition is a God, and so therefore an atheist does not believe in a/any god(s). Atheism derives from the Greek word Theos meaning God, and so to be atheist is to have no belief in God. The definition of 'God' is and I quote 1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2 (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god the Hindu god Vishnu According to the Oxford dictionary, God must be a sentient being. Now it does not matter how you redefine the term God, an Atheist holds no belief in a sentient God. Now if this describes Einstein, then he is an Atheist. If he believes in something else, but calls it God anyway then to each his own. It means nothing in the debate of Atheism. Einstein is irrelevant if we are to be discussing his personal definitions, because this is a semantic debate, which will fail if we change the meanings of words. The term active disbelief only makes sense if it is disbelief in the face of evidence, when you have the burden of proof if you are to refute it. Disbelief is a neutral position which simply asks for evidence before belief. If I asked you if you believed the seas had just evaporated, right now, you'd say no. This isn't an active disbelief, this is simply saying you had no reason to believe it in the first place, so no effort is made to not believe it. You're whole argument is based around saying Atheists have the burden of proof which is not true considering Atheists make no claims, but rather the religious. Proof is required when you claim somethings's existence without evidence, not when challenging said claim. To say we believe in an alternative story is wrong too, as many Atheists claim no knowledge to replace the void left by refusing God. I say void only to appease you, as I think we have no duty to count God as an legitimate option for the universe's creation. The alternative story would be saying it could be any of the other options, which isn't a story at all. We are not replacing God with anything, as we do not know the actual answer yet. You claim it is dishonest to say no God and a God have different probabilities. I'll put it this way. What is the likelihood that there is a God? Well a God is simply an idea someone had to explain something, so we can say 1/every single idea ever made that serves the same purpose. It is one of many possibilities. Now what is the likelihood that there is no God? It is every single idea ever made-1/every single idea. This can be shown by guessing which number when you role a dice. The chance you are right is 1/6, the chance you are wrong is 5/6. It is much more likely you are wrong than right. Your version of probability appears to revolve around 'It is either true, or it isn't, therefore it's a 50/50.' which is simply not how probability works. It is far more likely that any claim without evidence is wrong that it is right. It is completely wrong to say a decision rules out any likelihoods. We make decisions all the time based on likelihoods, be it crossing the road assuming we won't be hit, to insuring your house even though the world could end tomorrow. You make your decision because of probability, and so it plays a big role when you make your final move. You go outside saying 'The world won't end, so I'll keep insuring my house' and rightly so, because to stop everything you do in the event that the extremely unlikely could happen would lead to chaos and madness. Science doesn't disprove God, as I have said you can't prove a negative, however science is based on evidence and probability. All constants in equations are based on the idea that they do not change, not that they will never change, but because it is extremely unlikely. Science contradicts God, because science relies on high probabilities and evidence, which comes up short when it comes to God. In summary, Atheism is lack of belief in God because it is extremely unlikely, which justifies refusing a notion rather than saying you don't know, as if you are to say you don't know for God, you must be consistent with all other ideas regardless of probability, leading to no developments of any sort ever. You won't go outside lest you are struck by lightning, you won't eat lest the food be contaminated (one with a higher probability), you won't even live your life as you may wish, because if we are to consider everything regardless of probability, the world may end at any second, and so life immediately becomes meaningless. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...