Name them.
You seem to be confused about the legal system. The defense does not have to produce evidence if the prosecution has none. If the prosecution presents nothing, the defense would no doubt file a motion of dismissal (lawyers, help me out) and the defendant will be not guilty, with the defense showing nothing at all.
Since there is no reason to pick any of the 9 billion possible gods as the default one, all atheists have to do is note the lack of evidence for any god a theist proposes or refute the feeble evidence presented.
When life was thought to be magical, that was evidence, but now we know all you need is a macromolecule which imperfectly replicates itself.
You realize that the author of that article doesn’t actually cite anyone holding the irrational position in the headline? My reading is that he is an atheist, and just used that strawman lead as click bait.
So you don’t want to test your own beliefs for consistency and validity?
You dont think the court case exists?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
*Kaufman’s argument that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they refused to give him permission to start a study group for atheist inmates at the prison. …We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first. An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.2002). The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman’s own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir.1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir.2003).
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). *
(bolding mine).
BTW, who are the “hard atheists” in this thread?
*The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. …
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by ․ God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. *
You, for one.
Do you disbelieve me when I repeatedly say that I am an atheist because evidence to the contrary has not been presented?
Edited to add: Who else in this thread? I’d like to see if you are so very wrong about anyone else here.
I don’t see why it should not. So far as I can tell, the only potential sticking point there is “detailed”, and I see no reason to think that your or another person’s emotional response to a symphony could not be “detailed”. If nothing else, your responses seem to have included “I don’t really enjoy this”, “Perhaps there’s something I’m missing here, though.”, “I’m moved enough to look more deeply into this”, and “The best way to do so is by this method.” Seems pretty detailed.
It’s a weird clause to include, really. Requiring “detail” means we’re either looking at an objective standard or some kind of proportional factor response. If I examine three points of something, is that “detailed” enough to be analysis? Or do I need to examine 50%+ of whatever it is I’m looking into before it become sufficiently “detailed” to count?
You’ve pointed to the importance of analysis. Yet, by this definition, if what I want is to listen to music I enjoy, and I hear some music that I enjoy, then analysis was 100% unnecessary and unimportant. If I hear some music I don’t enjoy, and I stop listening, then again analysis per that definition is unneeded and even potentially wasteful.
Holding that atheism is equivalent to a religion for first amendment purposes does not mean that atheism is a religion. It simply means that if it’s allowed for religious prisoners to talk about life, the universe and everything, then non religious prisoners should have the same rights.
Perhaps an analogy would help. Say there is a business where some employees smoke and others do not. The boss lets smokers take brief breaks in a designated area near the loading docks to get their nicotine. This seems unfair to the non-smokers, who do not get these brief breaks. The boss agrees and lets the non-smokers take brief fresh air breaks, two or three minute walks.
This does not make non-smoking a form of smoking.
I am sure that is one of your reasons. But you repeatedly start threads “just asking questions” which are obvious attacks on faith and religion. Your posts, which ridicule faith and religion, and your constant proselytizing for your faith say that you are very sure there is no God.
However, this is just answering your question. Discussion of someone’s personal ideas are more fitted for the PIT, where I usually wont go. To avoid a moderator stepping in, I will not further discuss your proclivities or give other names.
Please link to one-I’d like to see how obvious these “attacks” are.
Good question. My religious beliefs have evolved into more of a pantheism as I’ve grown older. I think religions—all of them—are really fairy tales for adults. Mythology is a more polite word. Nothing wrong with them if you don’t take too seriously. I believe that God is actually life itself. I have no way to prove this, but it’s a comforting notion for me. That same life force that animates you is the same life force that animates me. The fact that life exists at all considering the vastness in time and space of the universe is a miracle to me. No human sacrifice required for my belief in God. It’s just that my belief isn’t one you’re likely to find in textbooks, except perhaps by authors like Eckhart Tolle and Neale Donald Walsh.
Can you not just admit that you overstated things in your former post? When challenged, you resort to something like “well I’m sure that’s what you meant.”
Almost no one says they’re sure there is no god.
And “deluded or worse”? We say that the evidence presented is pitiful and cannot support the conclusion that there is a god. The gobbledygook you posted from David Bentley Hart serves to demonstrate that.
Figure out a scientifically valid way to test FAITH and I’ll consider it.
Show me a way FAITH can be scientifically measured and/or tested for accuracy, and I’ll consider it as evidence.
I reject the premise of the OP as stated:
G-d does not expect its adherents to act without proof. Evidence for this are the words spoken by G-d in the Bible:
Clearly, according to the Bible, belief with proof is validly a key aspect of religion. If that does not meet some dictionary definition of faith, then by that definition, faith is not a key aspect of religion. Or would you suggest that the Bible does not consider the Israelites who were redeemed from Egypt or who stood at Mount Sinai to have been religious? (Yes, some of them sinned with the golden calf soon after, but a very small percentage.)
I am certain he meant me, too! And while I don’t know what his specific definition of an “unfriendly” atheist is, I certainly haven’t been particularly cordial to him regarding his ignorant slandering of atheism by calling it a religion. 
For the record, I am in fact an atheist, and am what you might call a “hard” atheist regarding a certain specific class of gods: Ones that have built into their defining identity things that can be proven to be false or to have not occurred.
For example, a person might believe that their god led a bunch of Jewish slaves out of Egypt in a massive series of spectacles involving numerous plagues, the parting of a sea, the drowning of a pharaoh, and the creation of a city in the desert that was lived in for several decades. It’s my opinion that there is evidence that this sequence of events didn’t occur: that city didn’t exist at the claimed time. Thus any god that has as part of its definition that all the events of that story literally occurred doesn’t exist - the story is fiction, and its god is fiction too.
Similarly, any god that includes as part of its definition a literally 6000 year old earth is fictional. Any god that includes as part of its definition a literal global flood and an ark containing literally all animal species alive doesn’t exist. Various other stories - if a tale is fictional and your god’s life story includes it, then your god is fictional.
So I can disprove gods that courteously provide me an avenue for disproving them. It’s worth noting, on the subject of the thread topic, that this hasn’t escaped the notice of theists either. Faith is all well and good, but if they’re attached to the idea that there was a flood, then by god there must have been a flood. By seeking evidence of these things they hope to rebut the proof that their god is false - and its not a bad approach! It’s all well and good to have faith in the unknowable, but whether or not there was a flood isn’t unknowable. It’s not good to have faith in the untrue, so demonstrating that nothing disproves their god is beneficial to their peace of mind.
But putting that aside, I was rambling on about the most important of topic: myself! I don’t believe in any gods, for roughly the same reason I don’t believe in dragons (and no, various not-quite-dragon animals and statues of dragons don’t count): there is no reason to believe in them, and in many cases the claims made about them are outrageous! You might as well ask me to believe in unicorns. No. I don’t waste brain cells pretending these things are true; there’s no reason to.
But if proof that dragons, unicorns, or gods did turn up, and was credible, then I’d definitely take an interest. Though if it was attempting to be proof for a kind of god that can be disproved by factual or historical evidence, it’s got to disprove the disproofs too. So start digging up those arks, boys!
I’m not saying that listening - or making religious decisions - without analysis is wrong or misguided. You might want to analyze something you like to understand why, or analyze something you don’t like to understand why it doesn’t work for you.
You can also analyze something in parallel with an emotional listening. Ooh, that sounded good. Why? Use of discord, or chord changes, or whatever. I used myself as an example since I didn’t have the tools to do the analysis which made things clearer.
We’re not testing faith. We’re testing what you believe through faith.
Most scientists who do experiments have some degree of faith that they will work, since otherwise why bother? The difference between science and religion is that the experiment must be designed so that it can fail, and the scientist, if she is competent, must be willing to give up her faith in the idea when it fails.
Convincing yourself that something works and avoiding trying to show it doesn’t leads to debacles like cold fusion.