Dear atheists,

[Jericho]

If a god created you en toto, he would know your curiosity, and your skepticism. Refusing to leave evidence would be tantamount to demanding faith. Demanding faith when he knew he created you with a skeptical outlook would be whimsical to say the least and cuntish to call a spade a spade.

This alleged god can change my mind if he cares to do so.  If he doesn't care, why should I?

I like this outlook.

[robvalue]

IAO: What do you believe? You seem to be implying we're misguided. Are you a theist or an atheist?

Everyone is one or the other. If you have an active belief there is some sort of God (whatever that may mean) you are a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist. There is no middle ground, unless you use non-standard definitions.

[IAOALGIV]

IAO: What do you believe? You seem to be implying we're misguided. Are you a theist or an atheist?

Everyone is one or the other. If you have an active belief there is some sort of God (whatever that may mean) you are a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist. There is no middle ground, unless you use non-standard definitions.

I'm agnostic robvalue.

[FatAndFaithless]

An agnostic what?

[Chas]

I suppose that is true enough.  However, I know that I am not the only one who believes there to be no evidence of a god's existence.  So it isn't really as if I am the only one missing something.  Evidence to me is anything that can undoubtedly prove the existence of a god.  Is it too much to ask for irrefutable evidence?  I know I am not the only Agnostic Atheist who would gladly reconsider my stance if a god was to actually show up and prove that he/she was real.

And how would they provide evidence?

That's not my problem.   They can present whatever they consider evidence and it will be evaluated. 

That's the way it works. 

[Minimalist]

He's really any atheist, he just hates the fact that there is no evidence for God.

My gripe is always with people thinking that a being powerful enough to create them would leave evidence lying around for their creation to scrutinize. 

Which makes it indistinguishable from every other human brain fart ever imagined.

Grovel to your invisible sky-daddy if you like.  Just keep your bullshit out of our laws and schools.  I don't give a fuck what you believe.

[Cyberman]

And how would they provide evidence?

That's not my problem.   They can present whatever they consider evidence and it will be evaluated. 

That's the way it works. 

Isn't it sillY? Can you just picture 'that' scene in court:

Prosecution Counsel: M'Lud, I would like to ask my learned colleague, Counsel for the Defence, precisely what he would consider acceptable evidence for the guilt of his client; and furthermore, how he would suggest I set about providing it?

Judge: Are you seriously suggesting that the Defense Counsel make your case for you? Just how long have you been practising law?

[robvalue]

IAO: What do you believe? You seem to be implying we're misguided. Are you a theist or an atheist?

Everyone is one or the other. If you have an active belief there is some sort of God (whatever that may mean) you are a theist. Otherwise, you're an atheist. There is no middle ground, unless you use non-standard definitions.

I'm agnostic robvalue.

By the definitions we use, agnosticism refers to what you know. It doesn't answer the question of what you believe.

It may be simpler to lay it out this way. Consider these two separate claims:

1- At least one God exists
2- No gods exist

For each claim, you either believe the claim is true, or you reject it. Rejecting it does not mean you believe it is false.

If I accept claim 1 is true, I'm a theist. Active belief in God.
If I reject claim 1 and reject claim 2, I'm a (weak) atheist. No active belief in God, but no active belief there is no God.
If I reject claim 1 and accept claim 2, I'm a (strong) atheist. Active belief there is no God.

I would imagine you are in the second category, making you an atheist by our definitions. If you don't want to call that atheism but just agnosticism, then that's totally fine. If I'm wrong and you're in category 1 or 3, please correct me. If you'd rather not say which you are in that is your choice, but you still are in one of those categories.

To then address what you claim to know rather than just believe, that brings in agnosticism/gnosticism. Positions 1 and 3 above can be agnostic or gnostic, depending on whether you claim to know your belief is right or not. Position 2, which is the default position, is always agnostic as you're not making any positive claims to "know".

[Jericho]

Good layout Rob.

But yes, we as Atheists should not be the ones to have to provide evidence of there being no god(s). This statement has been seen throughout every article, forum, and website that I have visited in order to research Atheism. It is the responsibility of the theists to prove that their god exists. If you are a theist and you disagree, then I will continue preaching to you about my friend Charles (mentioned earlier in this thread).

[robvalue]

Thank you Yes, that is a sneaky tactic called shifting the burden of proof. If I say I'm in position 2 above, I am literally making no claims at all. So I cannot have a burden of proof. Position 3 has a burden of proof, but it's not hard to justify as long as you remain agnostic; unlike position 1, which has a burden of proof that has never been met (in my opinion).