Yeh, I like debates that don't get swamped with ignorant name calling like some tend to.

• I would argue for a revised definition based on the idea of core beliefs where "an athiest has no core beliefs but logic, relying on what is proven to them by logic and demonstration."

The problem with this is that by definition an atheist is a person who believes that there is no God. To make atheism the default confuses definitions and simply makes the model biased towards atheism so that athiests don't have to do anything to be called logical (even though I have shown that the belief that God does not exist must be based on faith like all other beliefs). As it happens there are studies that show that children have abstract notions of a creator despite not having been influenced by concepts of God from organised religions or even being brought up in cultures where God as creator is not part of the philosophy.
Perhaps it's fairer to start with a belief system where the person hasn't looked into the evidence or made up their mind yet, i.e. they have no core beliefs, except perhaps relating to most of what they observe being an effect of "reality" and truth. From then on all core beliefs made (not logically based on another belief) must be backed by some evidence not depending on the new belief, be reasonable, and not conflict with existing beliefs.

For clarity, I wasn't trying to prove the bible's inerrancy by its consistency, merely pointing out that the belief was not in conflict with any other beliefs or observations and hence was a reasonable thing for me to believe (not illogical). I'd also like to point out that the long running comics you mention are obviously written as fiction: the reality is (obviously) that there aren't superpowered superheros in the 20th century. For a literature as extensive as the bible, between 2000 and 6000 years old to maintain consistency with itself and the many scientific discoveries made since is quite impressive in my opinion.

Its also interesting to think about the motives of the writers of such literatures. A comic-book writer can make money from selling comics, probably the more interesting and distant from reality the more will sell. The people in the New Testament devoted their lives to telling people the news that Jesus had risen from the dead (and that he had died in the first place to take the death penalty for our sin so that we could know God). They put their own lives at risk to save others, and many of them were killed for what they claimed to have seen. They were either barking mad (which is inconsistent with their writings), knowingly lying (in which case they would all have to have been in on it, and I doubt they would have faced death for it), or they were telling the truth. There's simply no point in them doing it unless they were telling the truth. Again this isn't proof, but still compelling evidence in my mind that there is truth in it.

• The core beliefs of an athiest do not concern God, as much as they concern invisible unicorns, instead concerning logic and reason.
• That is not to say that a core belief in logic and reason is exclusive to athiests, quite the opposite, but it is the lack of a core belief based on faith that is the mark of the atheist.

I don't think anybody is arguing that invisible unicorns exist (or could provide much evidence for them).
Again since the definition of an atheist is a person who has made the choice to believe that god does not exist, that belief must be based on faith since it cannot be proven, and evidence for the existence of a God and the truth of the bible must be conciously explained away using faith. For a person to claim that all their beliefs are based on pure logic and nothing else is nothing less than lying and arrogant. All logical arguments work from a set of assumptions to a set of conclusions. If A,B,C are true that means D must be true. They are meaningless without assumptions.

I don't want to assume that you are an athiest or put pressure on you if you'd rather not, but I'd be interested to hear your analysis of your own beliefs as I did in my previous post (I just started asking myself why I believed something until I got to the "coz i just do" level).

Sorry for another long post.