I agree with you so far. If you are not personally convinced the arguments for Christianity are good enough, there's no reason you should share those beliefs. I get the impression, though, from your discussions on this board that you're implicitly arguing that Christians should be Agnostics -- i.e. that they ought to claim that they don't know anything when it comes to matters such as the Bible. If so, that would be a positive argument, and I'm curious what your reasoning for that might be.Kenny wrote: IMO The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This goes for Atheist, or Theist; or even in situations outside of the God question (Scientist, prosecutor, etc.)
If the Atheist goes around saying God doesn’t exist, and the theists simply says; I don’t believe you, the atheist is making a claim and has the burden of proof. If the atheist believes God doesn’t exist, but he keeps his opinions to himself, he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.
If the Theists goes around saying God exist, and the atheists says “I don’t believe you”, the Theist is making the claim and has the burden of proof. If the Theists believes God exist but he keeps his opinions to himself he has nothing to prove to nobody but himself.
Of course if you have two people and they are both making claims, they both have a burden of proof. if you have two people and nobody is making claims; you have no conversation.
Ken
For other nonbelievers, I'm curious what you're seeking. I'm half-wondering if most here aren't just trying to better explain why they don't believe -- which is perfectly valid, as Christians tend to evangelize, but would be good to know.