How many young men have I seen fight their way from the camp of [[Christianity]], into the tents of Infidelity, and even atheism! and answer the question thus: "Dust I am--to dust I will return!" How many turn from the peaceful ways of the Christian's life, to the dreary [[Hopelessness of atheism|gloom of a cheerless materialism]], from the calm unperturbed tranquility of the one, to the feverish delights, or the revulsive melancholy of the other!<ref>[https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/tuckerr/tuckerr.html THE BIBLE OR ATHEISM] by J. Randolph Tucker, the Attorney General of Virginia</ref>}}
Peter S. Williams, Assistant Professor in Communication and Worldviews at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication, NLA University College, Norway indicates:
{{Cquote|Relying on the 'Insufficient Evidence' objection is a risky gambit for the atheist. As philosopher William Rowe observes, 'To fail to provide any [[Atheist apologetics|arguments for the non-existence of God]] is ... to virtually concede the debate to the person who at least gives some arguments, however weak, in behalf of the position that God exists.' Arguing for atheism on the basis that there is insufficient evidence for belief in God (and that, in the absence of such evidence, the benefit of the doubt should be given to atheism rather than theism or agnosticism) is always vulnerable to the possibility that new evidence – or a better formulation and appreciation of old evidence – might turn up. Such atheism cannot afford to be dogmatic, for 'even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God's existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true.' As atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen admits: 'To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.… All the proofs of God's existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.'
According to Robert A. Harris, 'a common sense look at the world, with all its beauty, apparent design, meaning, and vibrancy, would seem to predispose a neutral observer to presume that God exists unless good evidence for his non-existence could be brought to bear … The fact that materialists often struggle with this issue, working to explain away the design of the [[creation]], for example, would seem to back up this claim.' Nevertheless, British humanist Richard Norman asserts that, 'the onus is on those who believe in a god to provide reasons for that belief. If they cannot come up with good reasons, then we should reject the belief.' It was another British philosopher, Antony Flew (who recently became a theist), who most famously urged that the 'onus of proof must lie upon the theist', and that unless compelling reasons for God's existence could be given there should be a 'presumption of atheism'. However, by 'atheism' Flew meant merely 'non-theism' – a non-standard definition of 'atheism' that includes agnosticism but excludes atheism as commonly understood. The presumption of atheism is, therefore, not particularly interesting unless (as with Richard Norman explicitly and Lewis Wolpert implicitly) it really is the presumption of atheism rather than the presumption of agnosticism. However, the former is far harder to defend than the latter.<ref>[https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast] by Peter S. Williams</ref>}}
== See also ==