>Which is an illogical trap - professing an unbelief in statement A somehow makes you a believer in the negation of the statement? What if the statement has no logical value at all?
>
>Along the same line, the equating of belief in an imaginary friend with "belief" in science, from the same speaker.
>
>So no matter what you do, you're still a believer, doing exactly the same as we do, therefore one of us, you'll come around sooner or later, you only don't know it yet, but we in our superior nonlogic know better. Well, I'm not subscribing to that POV, no matter how it's called.
>
>I've danced this dance ages ago on this forum. I guess I still haven't forgotten the steps :).
>
>I agree with you. That's the same argument I made before, which (sadly) others have chosen to ignore. Belief in God has no reality check at all - no form of validation....it attempts to derive value in the argument through a circular reference back to God. Rejecting it is many things, but a belief is not one of them.
>
>It's like saying, "there is no Tooth Fairy" is a belief.

The discussion is now going downhill. They are not even close to the same. Putting the Tooth Fairy and God in the same category is a useful rhetorical tool for atheists and only a substitute for argument and evidence. One is physical and one is non-physical. Apples and oranges. Besides, the Tooth Fairy leaves money and God's (supposed) representatives take it. They are not the same at all :o)