His statement "If I make a claim, you have to provide evidence of that claim" is false. The correct statement is, "If I make a POSITIVE truth claim, the burden of proof is on me to evidence it." He's attempting to shift burden of proof. In fact the grammatically incorrect construct of his statement is probably Freudian. He meant to say, presumably, "If YOU make a claim, you have to provide evidence." But he's literally saying YOU have to evidence HIS claims, which in a way, is what he's trying to make happen.

This is why it's so important, although it's a technical position, to emphasize that as an atheist I am NOT making any sort of knowledge / truth claim. I have simply not been presented with any evidence that would substantiate the existence of any gods.

Others are saying, correctly, that no defensible truth claim can be made for OR against the existence of gods. That's because invisible gods allegedly outside the natural order are inherently unfalsifiable. Such memes have evolved to BE unfalsifiable. So we are reduced to judging the probability / likelihood of them existing, which in my view is so low as to be almost as low as it can be -- especially for specific deities, as opposed to a generic god simply existing.

They are a moron, and are manipulating the logic of proofs and claims to make themselves look correct.

Never debate a theist if you can avoid it; they self contradict as a matter of course, and are used to performing phenomenal feats of improbable mental gymnastics just to maintain their own beliefs on a day to day basis. You can't reason with somebody that wants to believe, only with somebody that wants to know.

The first statement, about it being an act of hubris to claim to know the mind of gawd, i totally agree with, and should be tatooed on the foreheads of All televangelists, lol! If you are going to believe in a supreme all powerful deity, you are slap full of hubris if you go around telling others what he/she/it thinks, no?

That shit takes me back… I’m glad there are those willing and able to ‘debate a’ pusher.. but I’m no longer one. They need an audience, a foil, a reason to continue on, and on… I decided to deny them that, move on - and now I’m here … where I can argue amid my own kind

Why argue with them at all? Someone who denies reality will not come over to your point of view.

You got caught in a circle and you need to get out of it. What proof did he give you that God exists? Work with that. If he says the bible then respond with... the bible was written by men about a god. Prove that God exists.
Keep putting the burden of proof back on him rather than getting caught in the circle.
He's the one who will give up.

Father Sarducci ??

Those people who deny understanding o evidence are not going to reason at all. They are more concerned about being right than having a better understanding.

Many theist are unconcerned with facts at all. They have spent their lives overlooking them. They simply wish to get a gotcha statement and feel better about themselves for defending their god. What I find interesting is that they need to defend an all powerful god in the firs place.

When I ask them why they must defend an all powerful god it gets much more fun. They may say that he wishes to be unknown. So I point out their going against gods will by telling me about him.

If they say they have to spread gods word. I tell them that An all knowing god would know i would not take "just some gus word" for something that important and would be actually even less inclined to believe in that god if he had to have minions to speak for him, as any false god would have to have.

That pretty much ends the conversation.

Try not to be drawn into debating issues that are just God vs science ... step back and just ask then to prove their God exists OR ask them to prove that their religion (which they picked just from family tradition/familiarity, not research) is the correct one when there are so many similar religions around the world with very similar biblical texts and creation myths.

Semantics..the old "you can't prove something doesn't exist" argument, but I don't see the purpose of arguing with a religious person anyway.

People believe whatever they want, and it's really none of our business, unless they make it so.
But if they are confronting you, it's still better to murmur something vague and change the subject.
After all, I'm surrounded by Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus here in Thailand (I rarely see Christians), yet I wouldn't dream of being rude enough to argue with anyone about their beliefs.
The only ones who've tried to confront me here in Thailand were Christians, and I just changed the subject and distanced myself from them.

Are you sure you weren't debating an agnostic?