Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

I do own the burden of proof to establish that atheism is a more reasonable position (a position more based on [good] reason) than theism. One way to achieve that would be to establish for certain that God does not exist. It will surprise nobody that I am not about to do that; one of the good reasons that I'm not going to do that is because it is impossible so to do. Indeed, proving the non-existence of most things is impossible. Before we begin on the debate proper, though, I'd like to spend some time examining what the debate is really about and, in principle, how either party could be fairly said to have won the debate. I would like to do so by comparing this debate to an analogous debate: Not believing in the Yeti is more reasonable than believing in the Yeti. I contend that unless we accept some form of special pleading when it comes to God claims (special pleading is a logical fallacy), then we must accept that these debates are, in principle, analogous. (I'm not saying that belief in God is as daft as belief in the Yeti, I'm saying that we should handle the questions in similarly dispassionate ways, using logic not emotion or gut feeling). Now, let's consider the debate on whether it is reasonable to believe in a Yeti in a bit more detail. Does Pro necessarily have to show that the Yeti does not exist to win the hearts and minds of the audience and, thus, the debate? What can Pro do in order to win? Perhaps you are of the viewpoint that Pro absolutely has to prove the non-existence of the Yeti to win... I mean, the debate asks the question in general and it wouldn't matter whether Con believed or not, nor would it matter if Con did believe and could only provide rubbish justifications... the question at hand was not "is Con's belief unreasonable?" but, rather, "is belief in general unreasonable?". At this point, I'd like to point out that most people will agree with the side that they believe in, whatever arguments are made. We would accept that belief in a Yeti is unreasonable in a heartbeat but since so many people out there do believe in a God, it's a tough challenge to persuade them that said belief is, in fact, unfounded in reason. In the case of the belief in the Yeti, Pro could essentially say "there is no credible evidence to support the Yeti, so belief in the Yeti is unreasonable" and would almost win by default... Con would be left declaring second-hand eye witness accounts and pictures of suspiciously large footprints. Everybody would be unconvinced by Con's evidence and, lacking any evidence themselves, would consider Pro's a resounding victory... Con would be dismissed as a bit of a nutter. Consider the debate that we're in now, though... I can claim that there is no credible evidence for any gods and I am certain that this is true... proving that is somewhat tricky, though, and even if I pick apart any arguments that Con makes or evidence that they provide (showing them to be little more than second hand eye witness accounts or pictures of suspiciously large footprints), it will remain true that most people continue to believe in a God and make the assumption (with post rationalizations) that they are being logical and reasonable in believing. I'm not asking people to change their minds about their beliefs; I'm simply asking people to question deeply whether they have sufficient evidence or reason to justify their beliefs. Broadly speaking, reasons for belief in God fall into the following categories: 1. Pressure from parents, friends, community, parole boards, proselytising churches 2. Fear of hell-fire / Promise of salvation (Pascal's Wager) 3. Personal revelation 4. Rubbish arguments such as the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument or the Argument from Design (apologetics) I shall return to all four of these in future rounds. With the exception of personal revelation, none of these reasons count as even half-way reasonable to justify belief. Personal revelation is a bit of a fly in the ointment, but I hope that we can all be honest with ourselves and recognise how easy it to be fooled by our own imaginations. If you really do believe in your personal revelation, have you considered the number of people who have personal revelations that directly contradict yours? What about those who have seen fairies, angels, ghosts, devils, aliens... heck, there are people who will swear blind that they've been abducted by aliens! I posit that there really is nothing available on this benighted planet that could count as reasonable evidence or reasonable argument that could justify belief. Carry on believing if you must but I beseech you be honest about the fact that the belief is not founded in good reason.