Question about "faith"

[Simon Moon]

If I were going to write a similar sentence, I might add a little for extra clarity, to avoid certain misunderstandings that others have made. I'd say something like: "[b]my atheism will continue, as long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof according to the criteria I used to evaluate their claims." Naturally, they think they have met a burden of proof, which we disagree with, so the subject turns into how we demonstrate or dispute the truth of our statements, and not some one-sided judgment passing that gives the impression that our own standards are somehow eternal, indisputable, and obvious to everyone.[/b]

Of course most theists will claim they have met their burden of proof. Not too many people will want to admit they believe something for bad reasons.

But have they met a burden of proof, using good standards of evidence? Obviously, I do not think they have, and I have good reasons for thinking this.

Can their standards of evidence for their specific god beliefs, be applied by theists of other religions to their religions? I think the answer to this, is an obvious yes. Muslims, Christians, Mormons, etc, give almost identical reasons for their beliefs, as those of the other religions.

They all have ancient texts that they claim were inspired by a god, they all claim that their god acts in their life and/or they have personal experiences with said god, they all have miracle claims, they all claim their religious texts have scientific facts that could not have been known at the time, etc, etc.

So, how good can their standards of evidence be, if they can be applied to other religions with equal (non) effectiveness?

The same goes for the "philosophical arguments for god". You know: Kalam cosmological argument, argument from design, ontological arguments, TAG, etc. They are all fallacious. So, again, how good can their standards of evidence be, if theists appeal to arguments, that can't lead to the conclusions they purport to prove (they are logically invalid and/or unsound)?

Lets say and alien culture lands on Earth, and they want to know which, if any religion is true. So, they gather all the best theologians, the best apologists, the best evidence that all the various religions have for their religion, they even learn all the ancient languages so they can read all the various holy texts in their original languages.

Do you really think, with everything that any these theologians could present to these complete outsiders to human religion, would be convincing?

So again, how good can theists standards of evidence (and burden of proof) be, if complete outsiders to human religion would not be convinced by theist's evidence?

And before you say that my hypothetical is not likely to occur, or the results may not be what I am saying they would be, you can look much closer to home. Research the Pirahã tribe from the Amazon. They have no god beliefs, and missionaries that have visited them, have not been able to convince them.