[ryanatau]

As an atheist I've noticed there are fundamental questions I must answer, most importantly why I don't believe in God. For the most part I guess I would say, if I was forced to try to give a reason, "Because there is not evidence for God's existence." However, this answer is based on a logical fallacy (from ignorance). Although it can be avoided by an appeal to who has the burden of proof such an appeal is only an appeal to authority. "You have to prove God exists because you are making a positive statement and 'they' say [who ever 'they' are] that you have to prove your position." Either that or, "I am being reasonable and you are not. Therefore my position is superior, as the reasonable position, and thus true." Either way it is an appeal to the authority either of a rule created by whoever and thus based solely on a changeable, and not at all self-evident, axiom; or it is an appeal to your personal reason ("to me I am being reasonable" i.e. my axioms are self-evident to me because I am of superior intellect and if you would think they might become self-evident to you) and thus a subjective axiom which reduces the problem to subjectivity and thus can only be answered by individuals and the debate is useless as there is not "right" answer.