Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[Ryft]

Could you elaborate on that?

"If metaphysical naturalism is true, then all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes."

Given metaphysical naturalism (and its inherent causal closure thesis), reality is comprised of space, matter, energy, and forces, and the physical laws which govern them; so nothing exists but that which either can be described in purely natural terms or is reducible to such terms. As such, one's mental activity is reducible to brain activity, which is constituted by matter and energy and the physical laws governing their behavior. Therefore, such mental furniture as "metaphysical naturalism is true" is nothing more than signals firing along synaptic pathways in one's frontal lobe; it is not a product of rational inference but of particular biochemical activity of the brain, in as much as the mental furniture "true" and "rational inference" likewise are. There is no frame of reference transcending the brain's activity, so one is denied any intelligible basis for evaluating certain synaptic activity against other synaptic activity. Nothing is true or better or incorrect—such things are just biochemical brain states.

---

---

If you cannot defend materialism against challenges, then ...

... then it is rank hypocrisy (and sweet irony) to hear you crow about theists who cannot defend their view against challenges.