Add new comment

Speak to the Atheist argument, there are all sorts or reasons given as to why an Atheist lacks belief in God. Just do a quick google of atheism claims and there you have it. No credible Atheist will claim that the reasons he is an Atheist PROVE that Atheism is correct, they just merely give a stability to his/her position.
Take evolution for example. Before evolution became the dominant theory for how we get diversity of species, there wasn't one outside of "God created everything in its' present form". Before geologists proved that the Earth was billions of years old, the prevailing theories were that God created everything rather recently. Before we understood germs and disease, people thought that God(s) used disease or famine as punishment or reward. The list goes on and on. An Atheist will add up all of these individual arguments, look at the arguments on the other side, and draw the conclusion that the evidence is stronger in support of Atheism. This isn't a cop out. This is a conclusion based on evidence. Can an Atheist PROVE his worldview? Absolutely not. Can a Theist? Absolutely not.
......................
I also don't understand this hesitance to assume the burden of proof. If I were to say, I think that there existed an alien race that created a city called Atlantis which is now buried at the bottom of the sea, would the burden of proof lie on you to disprove it? Of course not.
If I were to say, in the 21st century, I think a specific God created the universe and everything in it to fulfill his desire to have people either go to heaven or hell based on how they live their 10 seconds of cosmic time, why on Earth wouldn't the burden of proof be on me to show real hard proof? If you wish to make a claim like that, either show proof of it or don't. If you don't think the burden of proof is on you, well, I just don't know where else this "debate" could go. That's not a debate.
It seems to me that the Theistic position wants to shirk responsibility because it has been the dominant and unchallenged one for so many centuries, and it feels like there are remnants of that attitude in trying to assign all the work to the Atheist position. With sooooooo much scientific advancement over the last few centuries though, you now have to show your work when you make claims. A scientist has to assume the burden of proof when he claims that a rock is 2.2 million years old. Darwin assumed the burden of proof when he claimed that humans evolved from other life forms.
If I'm not understanding your position correctly, by all means let me know where I've veered off.