Amusing... But not exactly a constructive addition to the thread.

I could have probably phrased it a little better.
But with 1.5~ Billion Muslims, 2.10~ Billion Christians, 15~ millions Jewish today looking for an answer to whether their Middle-Eastern, Abrahamic God exists... And we have nothing. Nada. Nil. Zilch.

That's not to say that their God couldn't exist... It's just, how many more millennia are we going to allow them to find an answer whilst a large portion of Theists deny basic scientific facts like Evolution, Big Bang, Natural Selection and so on?

Now you are almost catching on.
However... Atheism isn't a belief, it is the default position.

It's neither a belief nor disbelief in God.

Science doesn't include God either.
Whether there is life on other planets neither proves or disproves that a God exists.

Each claim needs to be scrutinized on it's own individual merits and judged accordingly.
For example, there are claims in the Bible which are actually accurate... And many many many claims which come into conflict with science, especially allot of claims found in Genesis/Old Testament.

Thus... Just because one claim is true/false doesn't mean the next claim is true/false.

Clearly I was being satirical... Which seems to have eluded you.

False.

I am not asking for you to walk on water, just provide evidence that your God exists... And then the debate is over, can't be that overtly difficult, right?

I believe there is a creator as it's very unlikely we are the most advanced species in an infinite universe within an infinite amount of universes

To the first quote: Atheism in the widest (and seldomly used) sense, but that isnt the position the atheists participating in this debate are representing, or is it? You want it to be looked at as the natural, unaltered, untainted state of mind, therefore superior to any kind of god-belief. That is why wrote: everything is "indoctrinated", and this does include your kind of atheism.

Nevertheless, even in the widest sence i dont deem Atheism the same as a "blank slate".

Secondly: You completely missed the point. Exclude in the sense of having eliminated the possibility of existence of "divine power". Followed by an example of how incapable we actually still are... not being to figure out if there is life on the other side of Milkyway... or the moon Europa... 

Didn't we like have this conversation already where it was demonstrated that your version of the cosmological argument was in fact invalid?

And from what I've seen your arguments have in fact been responded to, repeatedly and in great detail.  When they are thoroughly responded to, you insist that people simply don't understand them, or don't understand logic.  So, again, practice some modesty and think about the possibility that your arguments are bad, or that you are not conveying them effectively.

Nothing was demonstrated. I had to repeat the argument five times because people kept assuming a second hidden argument I never stated to begin with.

And this is what you repeatedly do.   Any time someone responds to you, you claim they just didn't understand.  I assure you that I, and from what I can tell everyone else, are responding to the best of our understanding.  So, maybe you're not being clear.

But fine, let's recap. 

"1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused).

2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further).

3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity.

4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.

5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself)

6) This necessary being is God."

Your deductive argument (labeled as deductive by the source that you referred me to), ends with a conclusion that is not proven, even if we assume the premises are true.  How is this not an invalid argument?

I'd also like to point out that premise 5 is actually not even a complete thought.  You propose an if without following up with a then.  So, that actually makes the argument invalid in and of itself, as it is presented.

The premisse is contingency. Whether or not the end is empirically proven is irrelevant. The form of the argument is deductive, there is nothing formally wrong with the argument.

Premisse 5 stands easily. There does not need to be an "if" statement included. "The chain of cause and effect can not start with a contingent being because a contingent being cannot cause itself. The chan therefore must start with a necessary being".

Problem solved, next.

Most atheists I know, and pretty much all that I've seen in this topic, take atheist to simply mean not believing in a god. I would actually describe it as anyone who is not a theist.  I would personally not consider babies, because I think for one to count they need to be capable of evaluating the idea.  Otherwise we get to silly positions like a pig is an atheist.

But the second point shows that you are misrepresenting (I'm assuming unintentionally) what people here mean by atheist.

I would consider someone who says "I don't know" as an atheist.  Because anyone who does not believe that god exists, whether they are certain or not, is not a theist.  And would therefore have to be an atheist, as those two categories form a true dichotomy.  

To sum it up, everyone capable of understanding the concept of god has to be a theist or an atheist. If they're not a theist, they're an atheist.   

Not this again. Agnosticism is a legitimate position.

Yes it is.  And it is not mutually exclusive with atheism.

Agnosticism is from the greek word gnostic meaning knowledge.  It refers to what we claim to know.  I am agnostic because I do not claim to know there is no god (although that depends on the specific god being proposed.)

Atheism refers to belief.  Whether you believe in a god (theist) or not (atheist).  I do not believe in a god, so I consider myself an atheist.

I would accept either label.  However, for the sake of clear communication I prefer to use atheist.  Because, I am really really really confident that no god that has been proposed actually exists.  I would say my certainty is above 99%.  And I think atheist better conveys that belief.

This is what we mean by atheist.  And just like I'm not going to try to define what you mean by Catholic, I'd appreciate it if you do not attempt to straw man me by defining what I mean by atheist.  Way more interested in your response to my other post at any rate.