I never said Hogwarts was possible, in fact there is plenty of proof out there that waving wands and chanting incantations won't cause the rules of physics to change/break, and ...I got your reasoning for the questions.

But don't all our hypotheses qualify as human invention? We must imagine them and then prove or disprove them. Newton "invented" an explanation for gravity which we accepted for quite some time, until Einstien came along with a better one. God is yet another hypothesis. Is it the best? Maybe not, maybe so. Are the origins of the universe unknowable? Perhaps, but a lot of smart people are trying anyway.

There are few definitions of atheism because there are different positions depending on proposed hypothesis that some type of GOD exists. In some circumstances an atheist can claim that the proposed GOD does not exist and in some cases the only position we can take is that there is not enough of supporting evidence to jump into believing that a being exists.

QualiaSoup made a great video on the "lack of belief in gods".. if you got a minute please watch it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

Because some proposed definitions or hypothesis of creators can be proven to be false hence an ATHEIST can claim that this GOD does not exists(strong position) and then there are hypothesis like "a creator exists and no other attributes are given" in such case knowledge wise we cannot claim that this creator does not exist but we don't default into believing that he does exist hence we lack the belief that the creator exists(weak position).

Thanks for the link to the video, I will check that out later (I'm on my phone). If your above explanation is true I like it and will proudly call myself an atheist. I too believe we can logically prove a god as described by the Christians or Islam does not exist. And if most atheists are truly undecided about a creator god, then that seems reasonable too. I'm pretty sure though that many mainstream atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, take the stance that a god does not exist (even as defined simply as a creator) because there is no evidence. He claims the "default" position would be to disbelief. I've seen that stance defended by others as well. This is something I cannot yet swallow, because it seems most reasonable to me for the default position to be undecided.

I think you are mistaken about Richard Dawkins... check below..

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

1.Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2.De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3.Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4.Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5.Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6.De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7.Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1", no thinking atheist would consider themselves "7", as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher, he suggested he might be '6.9'[3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectru...ic_probability

^very interesting

The default should be to withhold the belief until sufficient evidence is presented...

In Carl Sagan's last interview he states the same... "Believing when there's no compelling evidence is a mistake, the idea is to withhold the belief until there is compelling evidence..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jod7v-m573k&t=7m14s

btw. if you love reading books, Car Sagan's " The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" is a MUST READ for everyone..

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-...6759770&sr=8-1

I agree with that, only add that disbelief should also be withheld in the same manner. Thanks for the suggestions, I do enjoy Carl Sagan!

You may have convinced me I'm an atheist, btw.

The issue with OP's argument is that he is suggesting that people should even consider the existence of something for which there is no observable evidence, thereby requiring reasonable individuals to give at least some credence to the possibility that they might be incorrect in saying that, in this example, God doesn't exist. However, for all practical purposes, the lack of evidence utterly and completely justifies the assertion that God does not exist because there is no argument for the existence of God that does not begin with a premise that God must exist, so all arguments for even the possibility of God are not based upon a premise that is a tautology. Therefore, reasonable people can only operate on the belief that God(s) do not exist, because to allow the possibility that God does exist would be to accept a logical argument that is completely illogical. For someone 2,500 years ago to build their entire existence behind the existence of the atom, without any observable truth (i.e. no use of atomic principles or observation of the atom) would have been asinine. What is the value of accepting, or even considering, an unobservable entity? To even consider it without evidence is pure idiocy.

In other words, in all scientific debate, the null hypothesis = fails to exist. To start with the premise that null hypothesis = might exist? is a cop out by people who want to believe but cannot find reasons to believe, i.e. agnostics.

^Does this mean if I ask you the question, "Do you believe I am holding a rock in my hand?" by default you should believe I am not?

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence and theoretical justification for the existence of a deity or deities. Just ask the theists.

You're operating under the assumption that all theist evidence for the existence of deities is false, thereby making 'atheism' the default and accurate stance. Since we currently do not have the scientific instruments necessary to accurately dismiss all theist evidence for the existence of deities (evidence such as personal revelation and spiritual experience), taking an atheist stance is putting faith into an answer, we have not derived yet.