Religion is the enemy of independent thought and sceptical inquiry
Arguing with Theists has got to be one of the most annoying activities of the non-religious. It gets very repetitive and I can only tolerate it for so long these days. They don’t have any new arguments and they’ve all been debunked countless times. It always comes down to one point, they can’t prove their claims and we can’t disprove their claims. At this point they usually make one of two mistakes, either they assume that a belief in a god is the default, or they assume the probability for a gods existence/non-existence is equally likely. These are both wrong.
No one can be called upon to prove a negative. That is a logical rule because it is impossible, especially if the claim starts with a being that is immaterial and exists outside of our space-time. That is why the burden of proof rests solely on the people making the claim. Rejecting a claim put forward without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Stating that no gods exist is justified, just as claiming leprechauns don’t exist is justified. We are justified in making that claim because Theists have never lived up to their burden of proving his existence. To prove something empirically exists, you must provide empirical evidence to support it. When something does not exist, empirical evidence for its non-existence does not exist.
Logical arguments are not evidence. A logical argument can be made to move an idea into the category of hypothesis, but no further. If you want your idea to progress into the category of theory (by theory, I mean in the scientific sense of theory) you must provide empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence your idea will remain a hypothesis until a better explanation comes along to replace it.
This process works because it lets in good ideas and keeps out bad ideas. As soon as you let in gods based on logical arguments, you must let in spiritual healing, astrology, voodoo, homeopathy and all the other crap of the day.