Funny how unbelievers have to bend over backwards. Of course none of them can prove that God doesn’t exist. Just like you can’t prove Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. No one jumps on your throat when you say you don’t believe in Santa. They don’t demand you qualify yourself by saying, “I don’t know if Santa exists or not, and that’s the most I can say.”
Nevadan: I think you may have missed the point of the quote you replied to. I may be wrong, but I believe the poster was arguing against the “presumption” of atheism.
I believe he was referring to the fact that many times the atheist assumes that if one has no evidence “for God’s existence”, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence “against God’s existence”.
What some atheists fail to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (”God does not exist”) as theism (”God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
Further, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade one to belief in God, atheism should not be “presumed” because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.
Next, to place belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, etc.; rather, the truth is we have strong evidence that they do not exist.
Absence of evidence is not at all the same as “evidence of absence”, which some atheists fail to see.
On the contrary, theists can produce credible evidence for God's existence. It may not be “convincing” evidence to the atheist, but that doesn't mean valid evidence for God does not exist. It is also true the atheists have arguments and evidence that God doesn't exist. What remains is for each side to present the best evidence they can and compare which side presents the most convincing argument for or against God's existence.
“On the contrary, theists can produce credible evidence for God’s existence.”
Like what? Ex nihilo nihil fit? The laws of nature? The universe’s inherent beauty? That’s only evidence of God if you’re already looking for God.