Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Must my opponent keep repeating that I don't understand that I have a burden of proof when I do? I quote myself as evidence that I do indeed understand that I have a burden of proof: "Now I own a burden of proof to show that Theists cannot live up to their burden of proof" It will, in the end, be down to the voters to decide whether I have met that burden. I ask you, gentle reader, to consider this: if I can convincingly show that Theists don't live up to their burden of proof then I will have met my burden for this debate. This is simply because atheism is nothing more than the rejection of theism. If the camp of theism does not meet its burden of proof then, ipso facto, rejection of theism (atheism) is more reasonable than acceptance (theism). So, how can I possibly demonstrate that the camp of theism does not meet its burden of proof? Especially since the BOP is such an individual thing... we all require different levels of evidence before we accept a claim. The idea of Burden of Proof really is trivially simple - one must back up what one says or believes with sufficient evidence and/or reason - it should only really come into a discussion or debate when somebody is trying to shift the burden of proof. And, of course, what constitutes sufficient depends on the situation and the individual. Generally speaking, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I mean, if you tell me that your name is Tom, I'll probably believe you... that you're telling me is probably sufficient for me. On the other hand, if you tell me that your name is Tom Junior and your father is the mythical Tom Thumb, I'm going to want to see some strong evidence before I believe that. Thus, I suggest that making an existence claim about such an extraordinary thing as a supernatural deity with personality owns a very heavy burden of proof. Do you not think, so, gentle reader? To agree in principle with the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (which I think most people do) but to think that for some unexplained reason that "god-claims about my God are different" is special pleading and a logical fallacy. It's quite okay for you to do that (and many people do) - your mind and your beliefs are your concern... but, anybody employing this logical fallacy is not being reasonable So, we have before us an extraordinary claim: There exists an all-powerful supernatural deity with a personality, who created everything that we experience The debate is absolutely about whether it can be called more reasonable (based in reason) to accept this claim, or more reasonable to reject it. Notice that I say "reject it", not "believe that it's wrong"; that might sound like a technical difference, but it's just like a law court finding a defendant "not guilty". They do not declare the defendant "innocent", they just return a verdict that "there was insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty". I ask you to consider, therefore, which is the most reasonable statement (you do have to be one or the other). "I accept the claim that there exists an all-powerful supernatural deity with a personality, who created everything" "I do not accept the claim that there exists an all-powerful supernatural deity with a personality, who created everything" NOBODY IS ASKING ANYBODY TO SAY THE FOLLOWING "I accept the claim that there DOES NOT exist an all-powerful supernatural deity with a personality" Now - the question is - is there sufficient evidence available to accept the claim? The answer is, of course, that there is no evidence. Believe me, there is no evidence. If there were, don't you think that we would have heard about it from the camp of Theism? If there were evidence, all of those millions of believers of various faiths would have found it by now and would be making quite a song and dance about it. People would be studying that evidence with vigour and vim - it would immediately be the greatest possible experiment that Man could engage in. This would be a very different World. But, instead of offering evidence, supporters of the claim that there exists an all-powerful supernatural deity are quite open that "you have to have faith". They have constructed a story in which "you can't know God until you surrender yourself to him". And, of course, like the Emperor's New Clothes, we are told that if you cannot see it then there's something wrong with you - don't admit that you can't see it in public!. That's probably why Atheists are given such a bad name in religious circles! I offer these as my reasons for finding atheism more reasonable than theism: Theists present no evidence (if there were any, they would) Theists make a virtue of faith Thus I conclude that theists haven't met their burden of proof (and that bar should be high for such an extraordinary claim) with anything like sufficient evidence (there is none). Atheism is more reasonable.