Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[bennyboy]

I've always personally believed the burden of proof was the responsibility of the one making the positive claim.

So if I change my phrasing to make it a negative claim, is it all of the sudden exempt?

Also even a negative claim is still making a positive claim about what is true.  If you check the Wiki article on this, it calls this pseudo-logic.

You've got this all wrong, because you are biased.

"God is real" is an assertion about existence and the nature of the Universe-- you are claiming some truly important knowledge.  "You haven't proven that to my satisfaction, so I'm not going to bother believing it" isn't really a claim that needs any support.  The person is not trying to convince you of anything except their own disinterest in an idea they consider a childish fairy-tale.

See, here's the thing.  Nobody here really cares if you choose to be Christian.  They care if you knock on their door on Saturday morning, or refuse to vaccinate your kids because of some obscure Bible passage, or shout "God hates fags" at a military funeral.  That's why there's no symmetry-- you care what atheists think, but they don't really care what you think. That's because there are about a million fairy tales, mythologies, and superstitions out there, and yours is just one of them. Nobody has the time to deal with a world of superstitious cavemen.