Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Esquilax]

No reason to support your argument. An irrational theist (similar to irrational atheist) can say/force the opposite thing without any reason:

"you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you don't believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational."

Are you kidding? There are plenty of things we don't know to exist, that's not a reason to believe they do. Doing what you're doing, and believing while shifting the burden of proof, logically puts you in the position of having to believe in every claim until it's disproven. And yet, you aren't a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian (protestant and catholic) and a scientologist...

Not having evidence that something doesn't exist is no reason to believe it does.

What are the risks of my belief even if in the future it's proven to be false?

You've spent a portion of your life believing something that is untrue. And there are attendant actions that go along with beliefs, too; how many of your actions are affected by your belief in god? Do you go to church? At its most harmless, that's time you've completely wasted.

Another straw man argument.

To be a straw man, I would have had to be misrepresenting your position. I never said a word about your position, I merely stated mine, and therefore did not construct a straw man argument.

You said above that I believe in anything that I find to be untrue? When did I ever said that? What I said is I don't know whether it's true or not (just like any other agnostic atheist).

I wasn't talking about your beliefs, I was talking about the nature of belief in general.

I again see no argument on your post, an irrational theist can say the opposite thing to you:

Then don't be an irrational theist.

"You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a *disbelief* system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize. "

You don't need to change the wording at all to make it apply to me. It applies to all of us. I wasn't just talking about you.

I also seek for evidence that God does not exist and also for a reason (other than evidence) to be atheist. But none so far.

Without evidence for god- and let's be honest, there isn't any- then there's no reason to believe in one. Why not suspend belief entirely until evidence one way or the other presents itself?

The "reason" to be an atheist is simply that there's no good reason to be a theist.

I can say the same thing to you: that you choose not to take challenges to your disbeliefs seriously.

You could, except that that's not true. Nor is it true for many of us here, who came to atheism by way of religion. I've spent plenty of time exposing myself to theist arguments. I just don't think they hold up.

How? By embracing a dogmatic "default" that the theist is the one who should give the evidence or reason.

Not just theists. Anyone who makes a positive claim about the existence of something is required to justify it. It's how the burden of proof works.

Again there is no argument/reason from you why it's a pity.

Is it not self evident? I wouldn't want to believe untrue things.

Almost all of the things in the world may be untrue. Even theory in science may be untrue. So it's a pity to believe in scientific theory?

I'm not talking about absolute knowledge, because that's a useless concept. But you do need to apportion your level of belief to the evidence; scientific theories fit all the available evidence at the time they are postulated, and change according to new information. So should it be for all of us.

You don't answer my question. Please answer with "yes" or "no" first.

It's not really a yes or no question, but fine.

Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Yes or no?

No. Nobody does.

Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue? Yes or no?

No. Nobody does.

There. Are you happy with an incomplete statement like that, or would you like to know why?