This answer had me in stiches for hours. Thank you.

Very good argument but as rational people, do we not also have a responsibility to correct those, who may seek to do wrong while justifying it through some emotional understanding. An understanding that is obviously not from rational, informed, logical deduction, but from fear, hate, and ignorance.

@Nomack It concerns me that you chose the term "correct" when all we can do is share our different opinions. The fundamentalist that we are having so much trouble with claim that they are trying to "correct" our infidel ways and I have no respect for or trust in them either. It seems clear to me that the only way to make this a better planet to live on is the insure that all who have the ability to cause harm are adequately educated and those who try to coerce others to do dirty deeds are held responsible before the fact. We don't have much of a chance as long as lawyers are allowed to, and even obliged to mislead the courts in order to defend the guilty; but that is for later discussion.

“I loathe the American Atheist Society because I view them as jerks.” Jerks? They’re a courageous organization, if not the first to actually use ‘the name.’ As a long-time member … who couldn’t even finish your statement - you, sir, strike me as a class A Jerk!

...finishing your piece, let me add - Chicken Shit, too.. If you aren’t willing to support those fighting for you -- then you don’t deserve to use the name they’re fighting for. You’re no Atheist … a sniveling appolitest coward comes to mind Yah, ‘you loathe AA’ … and it just took all I had not to tell you to Fuck Off

Good one

Now I want to watch Conan the Barbarian again. Thanks.

@NoMagicCookie welcome!

Great response

Please demonstrate that God does not exist. But yes religion is a political system manipulated to subjugate.

@David1955 Why

@David1955 So as an atheist you subscribe to the "belief" that there is no God being that is is not proven. So I ask simply to disprove the existence and your response is me first. That is a deflection of argument to avoid admission that you could very well be incorrect, in my opinion.

@David1955 Stating it is a false question means there is another possibility as to existence or not. And no I was making the comparative argument with NoMagicCookie. As atheists are making false dilemma stating there is no God when there may be several possibilities for any evidence of creation. So as to your post, you are asking for proof of god when you have no evidence suggesting otherwise, and then claiming a "false question" which you have already done. In layman's terms "the pot calling the kettle black".

@Nomack Why in the world should I attempt to attempt to demonstrate a "not" statement. At no time did I make a positive claim that no god exists. (actually I didn't even mention god) I fully base my introduction ( I often debate for many hours and address a long list of "Christian failings" ) on questioning the theist's (faith based) assertion that their belief in faith based claims meets the standards of evidence a truth claim demands. For you to insist I demonstrate a "not" "god does "not" exist is a classic "shifting the burden of proof" fallacy normally employed by the weakest of the theists I routinely encounter.

Let me give you my favorite example of how ridiculous your question is.

I have an invisible flying unicorn that rides a magic toaster in orbit between Mars and Venus. (there is an ancient book that tells me this is true so I am an Unicornist) I have a personal relationship with my unicorn as it tells me what is moral and how I should live my life and treat others. Now, by changing God to Unicorn, to quote you:

"Please demonstrate that my unicorn does not exist."

If you were trying to be sarcastic, I have found it necessary to preface such a ridiculous assertion with "SARCASM ALERT"

@NoMagicCookie First to be an atheist is to not believe in "God" so you did mention "God" and quite simply believers have faith for and non believers have faith against. It is ridiculous.

@Nomack First, No you are wrong (again). To be an atheist is to not accept the claim that there is a god. This is my position and the position of the many atheists I associate with. Although many Christians use your definition, you do not get to redefine my position to support your straw man argument.

Let me try to explain this definition using words. "a" is "not". "Theist" is someone who believes in a god.
so when we put those together we have "not someone who believes in a god."

This is different then someone who claims a god does not exist. Really though I made that clear earlier.

Second, there is no "faith" claim or assertion to not accept the assertion that there is a god. This is yet another common Christian straw-man claim that is in your usage of the argument, nonsensical.

@NoMagicCookie Oh my gosh what a adolescent arguement "you don't accept the claim there is a god" also neither have "faith" and finally the letter "a" means "not" which translates into "not someone who believes in a God". And you end with my arguement being nonsensical. Insanity.

@Nomack OK, you seam to be having problems understanding the most fundamental properties that the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim, even the majority of the more addle-minded theists eventually (although often reluctantly) succeed this point,

I'll break it down for you again using small sentences in hopes you may understand.

If you look back on my Unicorn analogy (which I find as ridiculous as any of the other positive gods are real assertions) I was in hopes you would understand my unicorn assertion (like all other gods, not supported by evidence) requires no faith to disprove this assertion as my unicorn example, is not supported by facts (supported by evidence).

Evidently you did not understand that lesson so I'll spell it out for you.

I'll begin with a quote illustrating how your (prove god is not real) assertion by is laughable by quote from Christopher Hitchens.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

You are under no obligation to demonstrate my Unicorn god is not real as like all other supernatural god is real claims, I have not met the my burden of proof.

This applies to all positive supernatural god claims. as they share the "Faith" based assertion of a god existing that has yet to be demonstrated with evidence.

I am therefore under no obligation to assert a (faith) based claim to dismiss the "god is real" claim.

Now, let me demonstrate how your final argument is indeed nonsensical.

your "and non believers have faith that

To set the stage it is necessary to understand that (you implied) positive (god is real assertion) is based on faith (belief without evidence)

Your quote ". . . believers have faith for (a god being real) and non believers have faith against (a god being real)."

God is real is a faith claim.
logically, your statement can be distilled into
non believers have faith against faith.

This assertion qualifies as a high level "Face Palm" and is nonsensical.

Read this quote again, very slowly, and try real hard to understand.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Faith is not a requirement to not believe a faith based assertion.

I hope, but am not optimistic, you have the mental prowess to understand just how sad your arguments stand.

@Nomack Think this is a much better example of why I find your assertion nonsensical:

When we distil your argument we are left with:

to NOT have faith, you must have faith. This is called a paradox and your assertion meets my definition of nonsensical. The fact that you find my supported (and this rather obvious objections to your malformed assertion) observation offensive does not change the reality that your assertion is not well formed.

To make this point even simpler,

Let’s replace “faith” with a longer definition so you will hopefully be able to understand how sad your argument is:

To NOT believe assertions without evidence, you must believe assertions without evidence.
Yes, when you distil the logic of your argument, Your position is that bad.

Hope this gives you a better understanding of the flawed logic beneath your argument and why I find it nonsensical.

Also,

Your not being able to understand my "faith" and finally the letter "a" means "not" which translates into "not someone who believes in a God" is a profoundly sad admission of your lacking cognitive abilities to understand a rather simple concepts as I did go on to point the difference between the contrasting statement that you are attempting to assert. Try reading my quote again, in context, really slow. If that doesn't work maybe you could ask someone else to explain the meaning of those words that you find confounding.

@NoMagicCookie Here you go learn something [facebook.com]