Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So what qualifies as showing "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

Beats me...
Maybe something along the lines of:
If such an powerful entity exists, which can contact people directly, and can embody people, then I see no difficulty in contacting everyone directly.
That way, everyone will have a similar experience which cannot be dismissed as an abnormal psychological event on an individual, because everyone will have experienced roughly the same!
If it's soooo important for said entity that we humans accept that it exists, then I see no reason why it should cower from such a simple feat.... as it seems to be doing now (if it exists)

So if a powerful entity exists, they should contact people directly, that's what you're saying? And this is what a reasonable atheist believes?

I hope you have some really good reasoning to explain why entities have to contact people in order for it to be true that they exist.

I guess you'll only believe Barack Obama is the American president once he rings you up? That's kinda stupid.

Do you expect this same high standard of proof for all your beliefs, or only for the one you wish was not true?

Oh, how I wish magic was real!!...
Sadly, it does not seem to be.
All my beliefs are based on some level of probabilities, based on previous experience (sometimes, compounded with other people's experiences).
And gods... warrant... a very low probability of existence outside people's imaginations.

How precise are your assigned probabilities values? What equation are you using?

Or, are you just pulling it out of your ass? You can be honest, Mr. Skeptic.

This is like asking "Give me proof that science works." Whether or not it works, the question is so broad, and can be answered with so many different answers, that we are spoilt for choice. I can pick something appropriate for your level of education. Are you in university? What kind of an education background do you have?

LOL, troll.
Assume I'm a 6 year old kid. Explain it like if my a very stupid blonde.

I once had a test that was something like "explain conservation of momentum as if you were talking to a 6 year old". (most difficult test evar!)

I'll give you a chance to think carefully about your claims here. Read it again, slowly and carefully and tell me if you are 100% confident in your own reasoning, and believe it is irrefutable.

Once you are convinced it is, let me know and I will respond.

I'll give you a chance to think about your lack of ability to refute anything I write, while you try to make me feel like you know something I don't, but never quite elaborate it...

Sounds like rage.

But since you want an explanation of why your reasoning is a failure, I'll take two of your own statements and ask you to demonstrate how one leads to the other.

"Now, I look around me...
gravity works in a predictable manner"

and

"Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god."

First of all, it's "Islam" not "Muslim". But why don't you explain how our knowledge of how gravity works disproves a claim, that for example, Islam doesn't "fit the bill".

Does it show that?

---

D'oh. Way to completely misunderstand everything that was being said.

Using your own example, the atheist position would look like "Well, I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore you're not a movie star."

Actually, it would be more like 'I don't see enough proof that you're a movie star. Therefore I don't believe you're a movie star."

Who cares what you believe?

What really matters is whether or not movie stars exist. And whether movie stars can log into chatrooms.

Reasonable people say both are unlikely. But at least they are possible.