Fellow atheists: Why do you think that so many theists...?

Many theists insist on saying atheists 'believe there is no God' as opposed to the correct definition: 'does not believe in God'.

Claim - Burden of Proof

Rejection of Claim - No burden, proof supplied insufficient to convince.

Furthermore,

When you try to convince people they are wrong, you usually need to prove that the opposite of their statement is correct in order to convince them. Most people when defending an argument will demand proof of why the opposite to their statement is correct, picking holes (and completely dismantling their argument) simply isn't as convincing as providing them with proof why the opposite is correct. If you tell someone why Theory White is correct when they support Theory Black, they will probably see reason, however if you tell them that Theory Black is incorrect but cannot prove Theory White is entirely true and they will be unconvinced and remain supporters of White despite all reason for supporting theory White being proved wrong. Even if you are actually a supporter of Theory Grey.

Theists think they know what the origin (before big bang, what created it etc), it is against ones instincts to discard their theory on this and replace it with nothing, as they will have 'lost' knowledge and will have to accept a more limited understanding of the universe. Albeit, their 'knowledge' lacks any evidence and the limited understanding is based upon evidence, though they clearly do not see that.

This theist understands the burden of proof perfectly well and also understands the logical impossibility of "disproving" something. I'm not big on converting people, let alone doing so willy-nilly, so that would never even be an issue with me at all and I sincerely do not understand why some people DO care more about how many followers their favorite BFF deity has than the quality of those followers. Talk about a great way to corrupt your own faith!

I believe many people - theist and atheist - simply do not understand the concept of burden of proof as it relates to legitimate debate.

The burden of proof shifts back and forth from the affirmative to the negative sides in any debate, but since belief in God isn't a policy debate, most questions about who holds the burden of proof are entirely a vexing exercise in infinite regress. Who has time for that?

I think you ignore our responses... of course we have the burden of proof. 1) only the subject of mathematics can have proofs- God cannot be proven. 2) We bring up the evidence and reasons for believing. 3) the you say God doesn't exist. 4) We ask for the proof of that claim. 5) You get mad and tell us that we need to prove God exists. 6) And endless debate continues.

I am not making generalizations, but I see this happen a lot.

No, they believe that atheists, especially on here, are the ones making the claim that there is no God, when they know there is one.

Honestly, I don't see the whole burden of proof argument - if there is deffinite proof that there is no God, just present it and end the argument once and for all.

They do make a special exception for their own god. They always want you to prove to them why there isn't a god because they KNOW there is one. That's just poor logic. None of you possess any special knowledge that I do not. Religious "experiences" are nothing more than a focused exaggeration of your own subconscious or any other type of psychosomatic occurrence or hallucination.

People have faith in religion bc it provides a proposal on the two questions that cannot be answered: where do we come from and what happens after we die. Why try to continuously ridicule them when religion gives reason for morality. Leave them alone.

What ever makes you happy. The empty schism of nothingness awaits the atheist. Eternal bliss in heaven awaits the Christian. Either way, both will get what they want and neither one can prove the other is wrong. Atheism has never been the first choice in any society.

One has to chose the one they desire and makes them happy. Both require a level of faith. Niether one can be proven.

Because the burden of proof gets in the way of their assertions that aren't backed by evidence.

I still think it's indoctrination. Most Christians I know are just to scared to question their belief because it would be "blasphemy."