Re:Nice try... (Score 1)

You can't possibly prove or observe the non-existence of all possible deities.

Atheists don't claim to have proof of the non-existence of god. Their position is that there isn't compelling evidence for god, so they do not believe he exists. Atheists may generally be confident in this belief, but it is almost always provisional - if convincing evidence is presented, they'll reconsider their position.

I personally don't believe in ghosts, Bigfoot, or pink unicorns orbiting Pluto. I cannot prove that these things do not exist, but it is rational to believe that they do not until conclusively demonstrated otherwise.

This is atheism's great logical problem. You say its up to believers to prove each of their individual deities. Since they can't, you go off and claim none exists. Uh... But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The positive assumption that "no gods exist" is itself exactly as unprovable as the assumption that any one or any set of deities does.

Nice try. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which behooves the proponent for the existence of god(s) to either put up or shut up. Sadly, they do neither. It is not irrational, it requires no faith, to disbelieve in something having no evidence for its existence.

I don't suppose we could change the topic for a moment so you can explain to us why we should believe there might be pink unicorns on Pluto? If that's not your position, perhaps you could explain why your position on pink unicorns differs from your position on god?

Atheism's core assumption is just as much of an assumption as anything in Scientology, to be blunt.

Hey, thanks for your frankness. I guess I never equated "I'll believe it when I see it" with "Hey, I believe all that crazy shit that L. Ron said." So, the core assumption that there are no pink unicorns orbiting Pluto is just as tenuous as the assumption that there are? Astounding.