Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Let's say the answer is that nobody knows yet. Again, this might be a perfectly honest answer and all it proves is that nobody knows yet, not that your god did it." They have heard the answer, they just refuse to believe it. You will never find an answer inside the natural sciences. Look all you want, but you will never find it. "You knit together some convenient definitions (pretending the inconvenient ones didn't exist), then ceased debating the point, picked up the same assertion in a different thread, and continued to insist that not having belief is somehow having a belief. This is not logic." You are trying to change the definition of atheism. It is a 'disbelief' or a 'belief' there is no God. You don't know if what you think is true, therefore you believe that He doesn't exist. Do you not understand how the dictionary works? The word has several definitions. Any of the definitions can apply to the word. But all of the definitions don't have to apply, for a particular instance. "Paring away the fact that atheism lacks everything needed to be considered a religion, from sacred texts to leaders to rituals to conjectures about the afterlife to origin stories or parables to codes of conduct to general organization of any kind, it really cannot be dumbed down any more than that. Atheists do not believe the claim that Christians are making." You are forgetting the 'doctrine' that atheists adhere too. The belief there is no God, which is based on atheist dogma. The very fact you categorize yourself as an atheist, proves you adhere to a dogma (belief with no adequate grounds). The fact that this dogma is universal among atheists shows a common ideology. An atheist by definition has to 'believe' there is no God. You have no proof He doesn't exist. So then it's a belief not fact. You gather into the group who consider themselves atheists. You don't believe in any deity at all. You have no proof that there is no deity. You categorize yourselves by your 'beliefs' it's not a lack of belief. Your opinion is there is no God, you have no adequate evidence to say He doesn't. Therefore it's a 'religious' belief. Unless you have facts then it's a belief. You can try to spin it anyway you want, but you are part of a collective group that shares the ideal that there is no God. The fact you have no proof, yet ardently believe you are rights is dogma. The point here is you can't call the "faithful" wrong for their beliefs, when your basis has the same evidence to disprove them. "If lack of belief alone constituted a religion, you would belong to infinite religions because there are infinite things not to believe in." I have already addressed this above. You are trying to change the definition of words here. It is a 'disbelief' or 'belief' there is no deity. You have faith that God doesn't exist. If you don't like this term, then perhaps you should reconsider what to refer to yourself. "....and that Socrates performed various impossible acts or that Socrates is a part of a mind-bogglingly unlikely, self-contradicting and all around unpleasant doctrine that I must follow if I don't want to be tortured forever." This is a whole lot of conjecture here. What contradictions are you speaking of? I have addressed the ones you brought up before. Do you have new contradictions for me to review?  "This means that any evidence for the errancy of the Bible, even evidence they are unaware of or evidence that has not even been discovered yet is automatically discounted as false. This is not how science operates." That's how naturalism operates, not necessarily science. My understanding is the word of God is the absolute authority. This is my starting point for my world view. In science we learn of established scientific laws. We study how the "order" of things are maintained. This is concordant with apologetics and secular alike. Where we differ is when it comes to origins. I start from the word of God. Evolutionists or atheists (secular) start from the point that God doesn't exist. The secular world view has to ignore God, and will deny any evidence that leads that direction. When I am confronted with evolutionary evidence I am very critical. Especially seeing how the vast majority of evolutionary evidence is either artwork or "loose" speculation. "Does an account of this exist anywhere except for the Bible?" Where would the account supposed to be? Would you expect to see the "drown" Egyptians write this in a book (all of the pursuers drown). The Jews wrote it down. Who else would be there to document it (that is different from these two groups)? "The 'real science' I speak of does not confirm the existence of something that has no evidence. If you consider this naturalism, fine with me." Exactly, natural phenomena is naturalism. Beyond that you couldn't explain anything outside the "natural" sciences.