I think that's a good question. We seem to need belief systems to function socially as a species. Maybe this is a defensive reaction, a consequence of our awareness of the evolutionary separation that has occurred between us and other animal species producing a need to believe in something bigger than our wayward selves. Maybe its our innate tribalism manifesting itself in groupthink. There's plenty of tribalism on display in all branches of the subject including atheism, which can be as dogmatic and intractable as any religious sect. And just as intolerant, as disparaging and as fearful of those who hold alternative views.
Atheism is simply not believing in gods - no more and no less - and thus no dogma. If you are saying atheism can be dogmatic, either that's a joke or you are using words like "atheism" and "dogma" in special senses.
So if one bloke says God exists and the other says he doesn't, whom does it fall upon to prove or disprove their argument
The person making the more extraordinary claim is, logically, the one who needs to provide proof for their position. The problem is then one where someone will argue that the idea that the is no deity is the extraordinary claim - and feels it is down to the person denying the existence of a deity to prove their point. So we are no further along. This makes it sound like both sides of the argument have equal merit. This is obviously not the case but proving that is as difficult as proving either of the original points in the first place. Hence we have discussions like these Still, in the absence of an overwhelmingly argument proving one side or the other - I'd offer that it is down to the guy that says something exists to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the something does actually exist to prove his point. This is based upon the idea of logical assumptions - as in the case of teapots orbiting (or not) Jupiter.
There's a simple answer to this which, coincidentally, also answers the question, "Why are calves sometimes born with two heads?". One size fits all, you know!
There are plenty of books and websites etc listing numerous arguments for the existence of gods, and numerous arguments for their non-existence. Anyone is perfectly free* to consider all the arguments for themselves, and decide what they think of them. My own view is that none of the pro-gods arguments is in the least persuasive, while the no-gods arguments are irrefutable. If interested, just go ahead and see what persuades you and why. Good luck. * NB Does not apply in Muslim countries.
And what makes your book more important than anyone else's? They can't all be right, as they are incompatible, so that means that at least one of them is wrong. So which one is it?
That's the "God" of religious myth, a human invention. "He" is interested only in what the people who run religious sects have decided he shall be interested in. It would be very inconvenient if he started taking an interest in people before they died. Where would that leave the self-important bods in fancy dress who like to tell us what to think? You don't want to go to the trouble of persuading people to believe in an all-seeing, all-loving cosmic benefactor who is concerned only for your eternal bliss and offering yourself as sole appointed intermediary only for the almighty to put in an unannounced personal appearance and take over proceedings before you've signed up your convert and got a donation out of him. How on could the Catholic Church, for example, become the world's wealthiest organisation on such a slip-shod basis? And that's my trouble with religion, as opposed to abstract theism. Its the nauseating conceit that man alone is special. If there were a sentient creator I should have thought it extremely unlikely he/it would feel any great sentimental attachment to possibly his biggest blunder, still less take special interest in their puny squabbles.
