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

[Esquilax]

Thanks to you and Stimbo. I hadn't thought about it that way. So correct me if I'm wrong, atheists want proof that God exists, not proof that he doesn't exist? I guess the real point I wanted to make is that I would want, for proof that God does not exist, irrefutable evidence. Yet, I do believe that God does exist, and I believe that without irrefutable evidence. I just find that interesting and it is something I had never thought of before.

(P.S. we can engage in civil discourse.).

Well, the point my peeps were trying to get across, I think, was that the time to believe that something exists is when you have evidence for it, and not before. The absence of evidence for a god, from our perspective, is why we're atheists. By demanding evidence that he doesn't exist before you stop believing in him, you've shifted the burden of proof, and put yourself in an odd kind of position; either you stay consistent and believe in every claim that is made until evidence is presented that it doesn't exist, or you engage in blatant special pleading and require evidence for every other claim, but require the opposite with regards to your god claim.

Neither of those decisions seems at all rational to us, and in fact the latter is a particularly frustrating feature of theism, and so we don't believe. If I came up to you and told you I was god, would you believe me until I was proved wrong, or would you not believe me until I could demonstrate that I was?