" I was not saying that people are brought up as atheists but that atheists start from the premise that there is no God and then continue to explain eveything from that perspective."

I guess I was trying to combine 2 points....one IS that 'some' people are not 'brought up as atheists'....but the real thrust of my point is different, and I did not express it well. I am saying specifically that there is a major difference between the kinds of arguments used by most non-believers (who may not may not be atheists) and most believers...and that the difference is important.
Almost always, non-belief is a response TO belief. One makes a claim; the other rejects it for various reasons. Rejecting a is not always claiming the opposite. Yes, some ardent and strident atheists make sweeping statements, just as some similar Christians do...but for many, it is just a matter of "I am not convinced." Sometimes these people are just agnostics.
I, personally, am MUCH more concerned with the form and details of the claim FOR God than in any counterclaim that 'there is no God'. I can't prove any such thing, so I simply say that I find many of the details FOR belief circular, awkward, incompatible, and not convincing. At the same time I see the historical reasons why belief was easy and natural for many...it does have tremendous emotional power and promise, and many folks would be lost without that promise.




"Well, the comparison is that we both believe something - I believe there is a God, you believe there isn't. We then both model our world view from that perspective.
You say there is no comparison because e.g Christians believe X, and atheists don't believe X. But you see that statement can also be read as: atheists believe Y, Christians don't believe Y."

I sorta covered this above, but I will reiterate: the positions are not mirrors of each other. Atheists do not start with a claim...they are rejecting a claim, even if the form of their argument 'sounds' like like it if you take it out of context.

The operable philosophical position is: "The burden of proof lies with the assertor." Since we seem to agree that 'proof' is simply not what one gets with religious claims, all the 'assertors' can hope for is agreement...and obviously, they have a lot of general agreement, for some sort of religious belief is quite common.

...so, why is all this important? For me, it is relevant to how my society and laws are constructed. In the USA we 'officially' have separation of church & state, but we have many, many who would like to have Christianity (often specific types of it) inserted into the laws and institutions as if there were no question as to its truth.
This is quite different from allowing 'freedom of worship' for believers who practice it privately. I support freedom of religion...but in order for it to be fair, it MUST include 'freedom from religion' for those who wish it. Unfortunately, some adamant believers take the position that 'since Jesus did say, "go and become fishers of men" and "whosoever believeth...etc", that attempting to convert the multitudes is a duty, and if we can't convert them we must at least control them'. So far, they have not managed to do this, but you know & I know that that movement is alive and well.

I find it very awkward to walk that narrow line between wanting freedom for religious folks who practice privately, and feeling that I need to be forever alert for indications that my freedom FROM religion is being eroded. This is the practical side of my continued debate of religious positions expressed here....that is, to keep making the points about why something that is ultimately ONLY a belief should be kept in proper perspective.


(and I really do appreciate your orderly & thoughtful discussion...I hope we can disagree amicably as we proceed0