standard of evidence

[Doubting Thomas]

Because claims about gods existing are highly unlikely

really? how did you calculate those odds? i'll give you a hint... you can't.

No, but I know that Christians also believe that all gods ever worshiped throughout history were made up by man... except the one they want me to believe in. Yet I'm supposed to suspend logic and believe that all other gods were imaginary yet this particular one is real. All this based on zero evidence. So the claims about any gods existing are highly unlikely.

intentions of believers have no baring on the proposition's truth value.

You miss the entire point of me pointing out why I don't demand proof of every single tiny little detail of my life every day. When my wife calls to tell me that our child has an ear infection, I don't demand to see the medical report. When a Nigerian prince asks me for my bank account details so he can move money out of the country, I'm pretty skeptical. It's all based on making rational judgements, and some times total evidence is not necessary. But that's all moot, because Christians never show evidence for their god anyway. So they get treated like the Nigerian princes, because they want something from me.

believability has no baring on the truth value of a proposition.

But there's a massive difference in the claim "I have a baseball" and "I have a god." You know it, and to deny it is just being dishonest.

burden of proof has to do with establishing what is rational, and deducing by eliminating the impossible.

No, burden of proof has to do solely with whoever's making a claim. Again, if I have a baseball and you don't believe I do, it's not up to you to disprove it.

the burden of proof is on someone who makes a claim to knowledge. if someone makes a claim that God exists, they have burden of proof to show that proposition is true. but if someone claims God does not exist, they likewise have burden of proof.

Right, so why did you imply that I have a burden of proof to explain my atheism? I never claimed that there are no gods anywhere. I just stated that most likely all gods were invented by man. You'd have to agree (with the exception of your pet god), or else believe that there are a shitload of gods floating around the universe and running around here on earth.

All I'm saying is that I don't believe any gods exist until someone shows evidence of one. I don't have a burden of proof to have to justify my disbelief.

you commit this fallacy when you claim "there is no evidence against God, therefore God exists" but also when you claim "there is no evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist."

Hardly. Not believing in a god is the logical and rational default position when there's no evidence to support this god. Do you commit a fallacy when you say "there's no evidence for Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, so therefore they don't exist?" It's not a fallacy to conclude they don't exist when no evidence is shown that they do.

It's stupid to have to go through life saying, "I don't believe that X exists because there's no evidence, but some previously unknown evidence could be found in the future or they could exist in some other dimension that is unknowable by science." No, we just stop at "I don't believe that X exists" and be done with it. Because while that possibility is always there, no matter how slim, it's extremely unlikely.