Why is it that theists making the claim provide proof? Hasn't theism been around for a very long time? Generally accepted, inflicted, enforced, what have you. Freedom to not be theist comes along and Atheists demand proof, now? I don't get how that's justified. Isn't it the atheist position to accuse theism in general of lying for millenia? I thought burden of proof was on the prosecution in courts of law. How is this different?
Some people are making this proposition more confusing than it needs to be, Ham. The burden of proof is always on the claimant, regardless of what that claim is. The person claiming there is no god is just as responsible for supporting their claim as the person claiming there in fact is a god.
Of course, knowing what we now know, having outgrown Biblical concepts of the universe, the claim that Yahweh exists has become an extraordinary one, and thus requires extraordinary evidence (for example, it is no longer sufficient to spread one's arms wide and say "How else did all of this get here?"), and can be dismissed in the absence of such extraordinary evidence.
On the same note, the claim that such a god doesn't exist becomes almost mundane. One can point to the fallibility of the texts, or the entirely political manner in which various translations were accepted and compiled. I recently watched a lecture by Dan Dennett in which he, while describing the rigorous and genuine--and often faith-crushing--Biblical scholarship undertaken by seminary students, quoted a priest who was also a closeted atheist, and it was something to the effect of "It is impossible to graduate from the seminary as anything other than an atheist."
I could also discuss the laughable "explanations" for the natural world provided by any of the texts, the barbaric morals codified within that speak to the supposed deity's paradoxically parochial nature, the parallels between the New Testament and the Old (and the Koran and the OT, for that matter) which hints at forgery or perhaps a retelling of old Judaic parables that have been mistaken as something else. We could of course get into the striking similarities between the Judaic myths and earlier Sumerian stories, or between Jesus and countless other gods and goddesses of the region, but this particular tack is almost too easy, and as such, Christians often simply ignore the charges.
Point is, it isn't just a matter of there not being evidence
for the existence of God, there is plenty of compelling evidence
against it. If you can see all of this and still say you can believe in this particular iteration of a creator, then you must admit you're doing so on faith, not reason.
I personally think both sides should put up their arguments on a nice big list. Both sides be given an opportunity to defend their position from the other. Equally. Then burden of proof is on both sides, and millenia from now scholars can get together and either hammer the final nails into the coffin of religion, or the theists can continue to discuss things with atheists. Theists can only win if their God actually shows up in some undeniable way for all to behold. Atheists really only need strong doubt of, well, everyone, and then religion goes away.
As I said above, the burden is on any side that makes a claim. However, I do not think the final decision is millenia away. To borrow from religion, I think the day of judgment is already upon us. What more evidence do you need? Remember, all one has to show is that a god does not exist, not that one is not possible.
It all goes back to why I think the argument between the two tends to be ridiculous, as more often than not it's a philosophical argument with no really stronger side.
It troubles me that you say this, because you are currently in the midst of a discussion in which mounds of evidence are being presented to you.
)