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

[CleanShavenJesus]

Frodo,
Have you seen people pretend to be hypnotized?

Have you seen skinny girls that think they're fat?

Have you seen people that have wonderful lives, ignore the great things in it entirely and convince themselves that they have nothing to live for?

No claim about what a person says is true for them is strong enough to count as evidence for science.

Do you believe that "mental illnesses" are real?

Oh no, not again.

[Silver]

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent

The burden of proof is yours. Thanks for providing an article that supports my position.

[Bad Writer]

A person is justified in doubting the existence of something if demonstrable evidence has not been presented to prove contrary. For instance, a man in court is innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around. You do not prove innocence, i.e. you do not prove the default position.

[Theo Zacharias]

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent

The burden of proof is yours. Thanks for providing an article that supports my position.

Read carefully "arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist". So you should have a reason for thinking that something does not exist. You never state the reason. That's exactly my point. You simply said that God does not exist because there is no evidence of God existence. You even claim that it is a proof (without stating any reason).

If you think that "there is no evidence of God existence" is the reason (or even proof) that God does not exist, then that is a false dilemma according to Wikipedia. You have not responsed to this. According to wikipedia, "If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false" is a false dillema. Do you agree with this? Yes or no?

[Bad Writer]

If there is evidence of God's existence, none has been shown. Therefore, there probably isn't any.

[Silver]

Would it appease you if I lumped god in with all the other fairy tales, including unicorns, leprechauns, phoenixes, Zeus, Snow White, Bambi, werewolves, vampires, yeti, the loch ness monster, extraterrestrials, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause? It is commonly held by the majority that those things do not exist. God can be held to the same standard.

[Bad Writer]

Well, Maelstrom, I do just that for the Bible and Al-Quran in regards to pieces of literature like Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. By all means, please lump anything that should aptly be lumped.

[Minimalist]

The last two are at least entertaining to some audiences.

[CleanShavenJesus]

The burden of proof is yours. Thanks for providing an article that supports my position.

Read carefully "arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist". So you should have a reason for thinking that something does not exist. You never state the reason. That's exactly my point. You simply said that God does not exist because there is no evidence of God existence. You even claim that it is a proof (without stating any reason).

....that is the reason. I'm not speaking for Mael, but for me, anyway, the fact that there's no good reason to believe in God (i.e., lack of proof or evidence) is the primary reason I don't believe in God.

If there is evidence of God's existence, none has been shown. Therefore, there probably isn't any.

I obviously agree with this statement, but not how you reached this statement. There have been things throughout history that did not have any evidence to support them that eventually did. So, saying that we don't have evidence now isn't a good reason to say we will never have evidence.

Though I agree, the odds of evidence ever being provided for God is a centillion to one.

[Bad Writer]

Though I agree, the odds of evidence ever being provided for God is a centillion to one.

I'm down with that. I guess I should've added that if there indeed is evidence, that we are all waiting patiently for it.