The Case for Theism

[Cyberman]

Atheists as a rule don't claim that everything didn't come about as a result of some creator, intelligent or otherwise; we simply ask that theists who make such claims provide evidence for why they, and by extension we, should believe them.

You don't seem like a person who merely has a lack of belief, but actually a fairly strong conviction that there is no God and our existence and the universe isn't the result of a creator and subsequently is the result of a natural process that didn't intend for us to exist.

Oh really? Say, here's an idea: why don't you try, you know, actually asking me what I believe (or not) instead of imposing some convoluted invention of your own, tailored solely to prop up your own arguments (such as they are)? Would that work, do you think?

Because this is how the game looks from my position:

Round One - FIGHT!

Chris: Hi there; I'm a Christian. I believe in the risen Christ.
Arthur: Oh yes? Why's that, then?

Round Two - FIGHT!

Arthur: Hello, I'm an atheist. I lack a belief in gods.
Chris: No you don't. You believe in no gods.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone spot which of the two is not only more polite and tolerant but also less likely to shut down discussion?

If all you had was a lack of belief the reasonable case I've made from facts should give you reason to reconsider.

I lack such belief, to be sure, but it's not the only tool in my box (Fnarr! Fnarr!). I also have an inbuilt filter to analyse new ideas and determine the validity of evidence. That's the difference between being open-minded and being credulous (or gullible, if I'm feeling mean). It's not my fault if your "reasonable case" happens not to make the cut. Get better facts.