The default position should be, not to believe a claim until such time that the claim has been demonstrated to be true, or likely true, with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument.
As David Hume said, "A Wise person proportions their belief to the evidence".
It is completely rational to reject the claim (disbelieve it), until such a time the claim is supported.
The problem is, that so many god believers (and believers in other supernatural claims) seem to think, that when we say, "we do not believe your claim", we are making the opposite claim. My disbelieving the claim that a god exists, does not necessarily mean I am making the claim that a god does not exist.
If I want to take on the burden of proof, I can clam that a god does not exist, but that is not a necessary claim, when debating theists.
As David Hume said, "A Wise person proportions their belief to the evidence".
It is completely rational to reject the claim (disbelieve it), until such a time the claim is supported.
The problem is, that so many god believers (and believers in other supernatural claims) seem to think, that when we say, "we do not believe your claim", we are making the opposite claim. My disbelieving the claim that a god exists, does not necessarily mean I am making the claim that a god does not exist.
If I want to take on the burden of proof, I can clam that a god does not exist, but that is not a necessary claim, when debating theists.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
