That just seems like common sense. The Bible mentions non-believers all over the place. Even Jesus mentions them. Not to mention all those Jews that lived right through all this and didn't buy the story either.
Nor do they view the creation story in Genesis as 100% literal truth either. And the book of Genesis technically belongs to.........oh yeah, the Jews.
Lol there is no god. If I came up and told you that there was a monster under my bed and you asked "How can I believe you?" and I said "You just have to have faith" you'd think I was crazy. I mean really. When you think crazy, you think of Charles Manson or Ted Bundy. But seriously listen to some of the stuff that Christians believe, or any of the religions for that matter. The stuff that they believe in is absolutely nuts.
I understand your argument and do see the point you are making. But to flat out say "Lol, there is no god." Is just as ignorant or even more ignorant than someone claiming that for sure there is a god.
Yup. I've made this point before: Let's say that you were born and grew up completely isolated from any sort of religion or any mention that there was a "god." Would any normal person think, all by himself -- or even with other isolated people -- that there was a big invisible man living in the sky? Especially today with our knowledge of what thunder, lightning, earthquakes, floods, etc. really are -- unlike it was thousands of years ago when they had no idea why these scary things were happening? Of course not. Not really. The burden of proof is always up to he who makes the claim; it is never up to skeptics to disprove it. You cannot prove a negative anyway. Someone makes the claim that there is a god? Fine, prove it. If it cannot be proven (and it can't) then, logically, there isn't one.
Someone makes the claim there is no god. Fine, prove it. ...and just because something cant be proven does not mean that it does not exist. That is crazy talk.
No it isn't, it's the standard scientific method of reasoning. Without it we'd all still be living in caves. You have a car that will get 100 miles per gallon? Fine, prove it. YOU have the burden of proof. It is not up to skeptics to disprove it because, as I already said, you cannot prove a negative. If you think you can, then THAT is "crazy talk." You have a pill that cures cancer? Prove it. Otherwise it doesn't exist. You have a perpetual motion machine? Let's see it, and good luck proving it. Otherwise it's bullshit. Once in a while someone will come up a method of nuclear fission (or fusion? Can't remember, not relevant). Either way nobody has been able to do it. So scientists gather around and take a look. If the claimant cannot prove what he says following standard, accepted, scientific principles then he has nothing.
Groups of people came up with similar religious ideas who had no connection or contact with each other. So that tends to indicate there might be something there, but also reveals how the human mind tends to follow a similar pattern in attempting to make sense of it.
Before religion gets organised, it has to come from something. Someone, either experiencing a mystical state though an epileptic induced vision or plant induced psychedelic experience, believing they had found something very real, as anyone who has experienced such a thing will testify. Then in attempting to reveal the experience, appears to have answers that others do not, so that they become someone to whom the people look towards for guidance. Others soon join in, because they get what is being said, and they too are seen as leaders, until they are telling those who follow them what to do and how to do it. These ideas may very well start from the highest intentions, but man being who he is slowly becomes corrupted by his attempt to make others see things his way. Man takes what is pure and makes it into something barely resembling it. Once he gets a taste for power, which is so easily felt, the original spirit gets lost as he attempts to create what he feels best reflects what he is simply not able to. As long as the majority of the people are ignorant, uneducated, and poor, you have all the elements for a good religion, as long as you remain the only one who communicates with god.
But in order for something to not exist on the basis of it not being proven then that would mean everything in reality can be proven relative to our five senses. Which is just silly to believe.
I think most people realize their is at least a small possibility of a god or gods (most definitely unlike anything worshipped here on earth) existing. We have discovered some pretty crazy and far out shit about our universe already. Things we would have never imagined in more primitive times. Much of science fiction has even come true. We may even invent gods someday, who knows. However, burden of proof is very important and cannot be ignored. There is absolutely no burden of proof on skeptics. The burden always lays with the positive claim. The original claim was that there were gods. Nobody denied gods before the concept of gods existed in the mind of mankind. The original claim must be proven. Obviously we have overlooked this particular claim for thousands of years, probably out of a common human need as esseff mentioned and ignorance about our universe. Times have changed though, and we are becoming much more aware of our universe. The wrong is done when those that demand their society not be dominated by an unproven claim are oppressed and demonized. Theism is an unproven claim that has harmed billions for most of modern human history. To progress we must ask the hardest questions and demand burden of proof when it dominates the lives of so many.
There is a burden on skeptics not to treat claims unfairly. Not to dismiss claims too quickly. Why be a skeptic if you're going to abort half-way through exploring a claim? Several stories have been told with similar tropes and claims. None of them offers evidence. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but we should at least be sure someone we are talking to has no intention of providing evidence, or explore the "evidence" they claim to have to see if their claim gets any support. Religious claimants usually have more burdens than just proof. If you love this god which you are convinced exist, yet you cannot defend the idea in a polite way and you think your god endorses being rude, then what was the point of talking about a mean god in the first place? That is to say, I might be on the fence but if buying your tale involves me adding a jerk to the cosmos I am likely to ask myself what the point is entertaining that idea.