Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Tonus]

It seems (some, not all) atheist say that it's clear and easy to them what evidence of God existence should be like. For instance, just show us a supernatural phenomenon that can defy current known laws of physics. The purpose of my post is to show that it's not that easy. Do you agree that it's easy? If you do, could you please tell us just one phenomenon that, if observed and valid, will prove the existence of God? Or you agree that it's not that easy?

I agree that it's not easy. In part, because there have been so many claims of miracles and miraculous intervention, and because so far none have been verified. I think that something that occurred on a massive (perhaps planet-wide) scale and was recorded by many people and which would leave behind evidence that could be studied would force me to confront the existence of such a being.

My post related to this is actually started with "let's start with something simple" (or something like that, I don't quite remember). It means that this is not the only reason.

Your other reasons still seem based on practicality as opposed to faith in god. Your reasoning gives me the impression that you are pretending to believe because it's the most rational course.

Depend, is there any reason to become an atheist?

The only reason to become an atheist would be to realize that you do not believe in god. If you have any reason to believe in the existence of god(s), then you can't become an atheist.

I'm sorry, I don't embrace the default disbelief position, i.e. that you should disbelief on something if there's no evidence either way.
Without any reason for that view, to me that's a dogmatic position. I won't embrace it unless someone can give me a valid reason for that.

There are many things that people do not believe in even though there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, to prove their existence conclusively. Atheism is an issue because religion still has considerable influence on people's lives around the world.

As for accepting the default position, skepticism does not require that a person hold to a belief in the face of evidence to the contrary. If you take the default position that you do not believe in something, and evidence or proof of it's existence emerges, you are free to believe. Sure, many people dogmatically hold to beliefs even beyond the point that they have no reason to, but humanity in general has progressed in knowledge by letting go of beliefs that were shown to be incorrect.

In any case, the alternative to having a default position that is skeptical is to have a default position that believes unless shown otherwise. That strikes me as a dangerous approach because it makes a person gullible. Unless you only use that approach in a very narrow sense and only towards the existence of the Christian god, in which case I would wonder why make the exception for only that case?

---

I agree that atheists are not amoral as I said multiple times.. I also do believe that atheists ARE moral, so nobody's insulting you. And yet atheism itself is an ideology that is amoral, yet begs that morals are essential.

Atheism is not an ideology, and therefore I agree that it is amoral. Atheism does not make any claims regarding morality or the lack of it. That's why there are ideologies like Secular Humanism, that seek to describe a moral code and which some atheists adhere to.