I would also add that many people do not understand why "make no claim" is the default position in the first place. There's several ways to approach this, I usually try to explain it as, given a set of propositions for which there exist no evidence, you must choose between (a) accepting all of them, (b) accepting only some of them, or © rejecting all of them. Then show why a & b are problematic, and c is the only reasonable choice. While this kind of argument is entirely independent of atheism, it (or something like it) is useful not just when discussing with believers, but also for unbelievers who may not necessarily be able to articulate the basis for their lack of belief.
You are still entirely justified in unbelief regardless of whether or not other people actually understand the reasons why, or even whether or not you yourself understand the reasons why -- you don't owe anyone an explanation. Even still, it's better when those reasons are understood than when they are not.
You are still entirely justified in unbelief regardless of whether or not other people actually understand the reasons why, or even whether or not you yourself understand the reasons why -- you don't owe anyone an explanation. Even still, it's better when those reasons are understood than when they are not.
