There is no God

1. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God.  Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.

I believe there is no God

1. To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice.  Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?

   1. If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?  

      1. There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
             (I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).

      2. Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.

   2. If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?

      1. At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs.  Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God.  It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.

      2. Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence.  Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.

      3. If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known.  If it were known then it would be in use by atheists.  But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.

   3. If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.

   4. If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism.  A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.

2. For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist.  It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

There is no evidence for God

1. This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence.  Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.

I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence.

1. To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the possibility of God's existence.

2. If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence.  This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.

I lack belief in God.

1. To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above).  If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack. 
       The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief."  Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice.  Any position held, must have reasons or it is not a position.  It would be nothing.  The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.

2. My cat lacks belief in God as does my computer.  Are they also atheists?  Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.

3. If you say that "lacking belief" refers only to yourself as a human being, then see point A.

I don't believe in God.

1. Is this a choice you have made?  If so, why?  What made you not believe in God?

2. Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God?  Can you please tell me what it is?

Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.

1. Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.  If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.

2. Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God.

   1. But, can all things be explained via naturalism?  No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur.  Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things.  Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.