Religion is a complete load of crap.

Actyually, it does make sense.

Let's say A believes in the existence of the Muslim god and B believes in the existence of a god but doesn't assume anything about this god.

Now, who is more likely to be right? Obviously B. Perhaps there is a god, but that god is the Christian god. In that scenario, B is right but A losses. How one defines god impacts on the likelihood of that god existing.

If you admit there is a chance that unicorns exist, then yes I'd call you Agnostic. Meanings of words may be arbitrary, but it does no favour in debates such as these to mislabel yourself and use words in the wrong context.

Atheism: The strict belief there is no God.
Agnosticism: Fence sitting, is waiting for proof of God so neither denies nor accepts the existence of one.

Not every Atheist, no. There are many who aren't influenced by his extreme branch of Atheism, but it is gaining popularity and he is being treated almost like some form of Atheist Prophet.

For all Atheists want to hide behind semantics, the act of disbelieving in the existence of something is the exact same as believing in its non-existence. Atheists believe God or the Gods don't exist.

Atheism is just a belief system like any other. In fact, much like Paganism, it has no central control and has a multitude of beliefs associated with it.

So, you have Dawkinites who are rather extreme in their views and hold that teaching child religion is child abuse and kids should be removed from religious parents. As one example. Then you have others, as we've seen on this thread already, who are quite content to let religious people get on with it as long as no one is being taught to hate anyone else. Much like you have Christians and Christian extremists, Pagans and Pagan extremists, Muslims and Muslim extremists, ad infinitum.

and then gets pissed off when the Pope retaliates and then Dawkins has the gall to say the Pope through the first stone. They also support the removal of children from religious parents whose only fault is to be religious; fail to research their subject properly (despite being "scientists"); fail to remain objective; make crass comments based on stereotypes and what have you.

Atheists have also been known to commit atrocities in the name of Atheism.

You should write this 'argument' against mine on a postcard and send it to Dawkins, he would be very pleased. It would only be polite for you to stop licking your window for 5 minutes and type an actual response.

Well, the problem is that you have misdefined atheism. Very, very few atheists would adhere to that definition.
By your definition, Dawkins is not an atheist.

–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

*snips*

No once again you have slipped from the semantical into the epistemological and metaphysical. The believer B asserting something more general about his/her God does not broaden the likelihood of the God because he still hasn't defined anything. To say this God is more likely than this God is preposterous because a God's existence is not contingent on its definition nor the semantic limitations placed on it. I will reiterate, there is no basis to assume one God is more likely than another (unless there are glaring contradictions in the concept or religion).

It is still pretty much unknowable and as I stated, is near 0 and near infinite at the same time.

Not every Atheist, no. There are many who aren't influenced by his extreme branch of Atheism, but it is gaining popularity and he is being treated almost like some form of Atheist Prophet.

For all Atheists want to hide behind semantics, the act of disbelieving in the existence of something is the exact same as believing in its non-existence. Atheists believe God or the Gods don't exist. Atheism is just a belief system like any other. In fact, much like Paganism, it has no central control and has a multitude of beliefs associated with it. So, you have Dawkinites who are rather extreme in their views and hold that teaching child religion is child abuse and kids should be removed from religious parents. As one example. Then you have others, as we've seen on this thread already, who are quite content to let religious people get on with it as long as no one is being taught to hate anyone else. Much like you have Christians and Christian extremists, Pagans and Pagan extremists, Muslims and Muslim extremists, ad infinitum.

Lets say I have a box. There could be anything in the box. Person A says "I believe there is an apple in the box". Person B says "I believe there is a piece of fruit in the box".
Person B is more likely to be correct. If an apple is in the box, they are both correct, if non-fruit is in the box they are both incorrect, but if there is a non-apple fruit in the box, only person B is correct.

Person B has not defined what kind of fruit is in the box.

Have a look at my sig, it's appropriate in this case as your argument is basically saying it's fine to believe anything that can't be disproved.

Most people don't believe unicorns or faeries exist, does that mean these non-beliefs are belief systems? It's absurd to claim a lack of belief is a belief system. Non-belief in something is simply the default position until you have evidence of it, and there is simply no good evidence for a God. The only thing atheism entails is non-belief in a deity, what you've described in the second bolded bit is antitheism. The two are not the same.

And?

No, seriously the likely hood of either on is still the exact same. It is near 0 and near infinite. This is probably a bit advanced maths but the boxes content is not dependant upon the semantic definition nor the conceptual limits you place on it. The box is in itself, exactly a box with something or nothing in it. Thus the probability of both is that both have a probability near 0 and infinity. You are making an erroneous slip from the semantic to the physical (or when defining God, to the metaphysical).

I am also a strong atheist, but your post is almost hypocritical. What your post read to me was as a summary of the God Delusion by Dawkins. Therefore, your views, whilst not based on this book, use this book as an evidence and follow closely the criticism that Dawkins presents - is this not reminiescent of a religious activity to you? Religion is not simply the belief in God, but the following of a Ethos and morals. To literal meanings in religion are all but eradicated in modern society - for a closer example look towards Buddhism.

Richard Dawkins is a poor excuse for a social scientist, and whilst some of his book (such as the selfish gene) are informative and accessible, The God Delusion is a prejudice and stagnant example of anti-monotheism.

To criticise religion, you need to be prepared to understand it, and be specific - every religion is different and cannot be tarred with the same brush. The best critic for religion is the person who knows it inside out - the theologist.

Lastly, you should allow people to have faith, if it helps them to live a better, more fulfilled life, then who are we to criticise. Speak to any modern person who follows a religion, and you will probably be surprised by their reasons and method of following. Media reports only on the extremes of religion, not the vast majority who are sensible, objective citizens. How much better are you then those who preach about their religion, if you preach about atheism?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.

I think the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief; and anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization.

Disbelief:
the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
refusal to believe; absence of belief

Most atheists would take definition 2. Not definition 1., the one you highlighted.

A hypothesis is a guess- A theory is where there is evidence to support it.

Bored of this. Already answered it.

Lol.

Semantics. If i were to reword "the refusal to believe something is true" it would be "to believe something is not true".

Stop relying on your semantic arguments. They're easily foiled. This is why definition 1 is the most important, ie. number 1, because number 2 is just a way of rewording it for elucidation.

You do realise this makes no sense. The chance of God existing is near 0 and near infinite at the same time. There is no fixed chance or probability of God existing. Nor is there any basis to assume either side.