There is no God.

[GrandizerII]

Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.
Karl Popper

[Bibliofagus]

Thank you.
Would this leg work have to be very specific? I mean: would a person who never heard about your god be able to find him? Another christian poster (Lek) said he believed this to be possible.

To use your analogy: The million dollars - if they are legal tender - would have specific numbers on them. Each bill. Would I be required to just believe there is 'a' million dollars there? Or should I have a preconception about which specific bills are there? Or even how many? What about denominations?

Yes I agree with lek and I've said before... I think it's actually biblical (just don't ask me to find it ). It wouldn't be impossible to achieve an equal status in Gods eyes totally ignorant of religion.

I think it's a straight million dollars with no more information than that. Like a blind lottery.

And when a muslim turns the corner your god dons his Allah-cap or something? And for a hindu he'll appear as several gods?

[Mudhammam]

---

I wholeheartedly embrace the label "anti-theist." I wish more atheists would as I see it to be the only moral and logical response to religious thinking, all things considered. But I reject the claim that I'm portraying atheists as somehow dishonest when they shift the burden of proof back to whom it belongs (the believers). I've stated that much clearly--the burden is not on us, but we also shouldn't simply sit around and wait for theists to try to make their case...they never have and never will, yet so many continue to be deceived. We should, in my opinion, be actively making the case against God, because science gives us a pretty good one.

---

And that's the point, isn't it. Anti-theism is a positive claim which has a burden of proof and you respond to that burden by using rebuttals of theistic claims (e.g. biblical historical claims vs archaeological evidence, religious 'omni' claims vs logical absolutes). Atheists are not being dishonest when shifting the burden of proof back but if you hold an antitheistic position and do the same, that is dishonest. By then trying to classify all atheists as antitheists, you mischaracterise the atheists position on burdens of proof. That can be dangerous as it lets theists accuse atheists of being dishonest. Does that make sense?

Yeah Ben, I see what you're saying and why my original post may have seemed misguided, or a mischaracterization of atheism. At least in the court of public opinion at this point, anti-theism is pretty much viewed as atheism, and you're right to be concerned that I'm contributing to that misunderstanding by not being more clear.