Except the believer is not asking anything from you. If they wanted you to believe, then that's a different story - like wanting a loan from you. But again, I don't think most believers care that much whether you believe them or not.
Well, those beliefs tend to become intertwined with government policy so it's not as if it's their belief and it doesn't affect others.
That's part of democracy, though - you don't have to vote for them, and if they try to implement policies based on their beliefs, you can campaign against that if you'd like, as many people do (pro-choice, gay marriage, etc). It's no different than voting for or against people for any of their other beliefs.
Sorry my man. You are an atheist when it comes to Zeus, Poseidon, Rah, etc. just like the rest of us. If you are a Christian, you are also an atheist when it comes to Krishna and all of the gods that are currently worshiped. There are so many claims about what a god is suppose to be and I am sure you don't believe all of them. That makes you an atheist based on a specific claim.
To expand on that, what you're really voting for/against is what they will implement into law, regardless of their beliefs. If someone is personally against abortion, but doesn't care to try to change the law, do you really care? It's only their policy views that ultimately really matter to most people, rather than the set of beliefs and values that get them to that point.
One does not need to prove a negative, nor does one need to prove something doesn't exist. Atheism is the default position, not agnosticism. It is the belief that there isn't something, or a lack thereof. In much the same way that people don't believe unicorns exist, or don't believe that there are invisible penises above everyone's head. The default position is that something doesn't exist.
You said the believer is not asking anything of me but ultimately he is. It is different when you have an actual basis for a belief that has some observable or verifiable merit. Anti marriage proponents are often so based on faith, not on any evidence that its somehow destructive to society.
Except explanations aren't needed for why those things aren't there. An explanation as to how we exist, why we exist, and what happens when we die is something we naturally seek out.
No he's not - or at least, not based on his beliefs. You are voting for them based on what they would do in office. Obama is a Christian. Lots of atheists support Obama, despite his beliefs. Lots of Christians oppose him, despite his beliefs. The reason is that people are concerned with actions - and regardless of WHY Obama is pro-choice, he is. You're not voting for/against him based on his beliefs in God; you're voting for/against him based on his policy positions. Those policy positions will be formed by any number of unprovable beliefs, whether it be in God or the idea that we have an obligation to help the poor or that capitalism is the best economic policy.
That's not true, who says Unicorns aren't God's special animals sent from Heaven? The default position of everything, is that it isn't there unless shown otherwise.
The benefit of helping the poor and our choice of the best economic policy have observable, verifiable criteria that can be tested and determined. You're gay and can't marry because God said so has none.
Who is to say they aren't? But there is no reason to question the spefic existence of an animal, while there is concerning deities. If you were right, religion would not have dominated the world like it has throughout history.
I don't really understand your point. I'm saying that the default position of every single conceivable thing is that it doesn't exist.
But these aren't equivalent. You added reasoning to the last one ("because God said so") but not in the other two. The three policies are: Helping the poor is good Capitalism is good Gay marriage is bad Each of those has observable criteria and can be tested. But WHY someone reaches those policies views is unprovable. Their view of God may play a full part, partial part, or no part at all in each of them. If someone believes that helping the poor is good, does it matter if they believe that because God said so?
But that isn't really true. We default to believe there is something greater out there. We don't default to any spefic deity. There is a natural curiousity. Without outside influence, you would most likely search for that meaning.
See, here is the problem. In science, null hypothesis is the default position. That is, what we are proposing does not exist unless it is proven otherwise. Humans are naturally curious, but you are making the assumption that we are naturally curious about god specifically, which isn't true. Humans are curious about everything.
The things we are most universally curious about, are those things that are explained with the divine. That is why it is so easy to shape one's mind regarding religion, but difficult to do about floating invisible penises and unicorns. Key word there is in Science. We've determined that it is best to test theories under the premise that the relationship does not exist. That has nothing to do with how humans are pre-programmed.
Humans are certainly curious about everything. But going back as far as we know with humans and long before any sort of organized religion, anything unknown has basically been attributed to some type of God(s), across civilizations and time periods. As juicy suggests, it seems to be wired into how people are programmed.
