Changes

::But if the question is being asked to an atheist, obviously they will answer under their assumption that God does not exist. Their opponent is expected to understand this.

::But if the question is being asked to an atheist, obviously they will answer under their assumption that God does not exist. Their opponent is expected to understand this.

::The point of the leprechaun argument is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You need to remember that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. What's so special about ''your'' book saying that your own guy in the cloud is real? This isn't ''proof'' against Christianity, but it does prove that the Bible isn't sufficient evidence for Christianity. In the language of pure mathematics and probability theory, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Therefore atheism (the ''absence'' of a god) is the default worldview until there is more evidence.

::The point of the leprechaun argument is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You need to remember that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world. What's so special about ''your'' book saying that your own guy in the cloud is real? This isn't ''proof'' against Christianity, but it does prove that the Bible isn't sufficient evidence for Christianity. In the language of pure mathematics and probability theory, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Therefore atheism (the ''absence'' of a god) is the default worldview until there is more evidence.