James P.:Since when does atheism require proof? Atheism is the default position, or the lack of a positive claim. Theists are the ones making positive claims about the existence of their god and/or gods (and the non-existence of other gods, or hierarchical claims regarding their god's position in the ethereal realm) and thus the burden of proof is on them to support their claims, not the other way around.
Got proof?
Exactly. There are, essentially, an infinity of possible imaginary positive claims based on no evidence. A real possibility has to involve some sort of evidence and logical consistency.
I briefly used a quote from Francis Bacon as my signature: "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." (1620) I agree with it conceptually, but I don't like the connotations of domination and submission in the language. Bacon also pointed out the obvious, that "knowledge is power." Living beings pursue power, instinctually and/or conceptually, to survive and/or pursue happiness (and spread their genetic material far and wide). Power is good for human beings, as long as it remains at the individual level within certain boundaries (of self-ownership). In order to maximize one's power to "live long and prosper," a human being must think and act according to the laws of physical reality ("obey" nature) as discovered through the evidence of the senses and logic (which is learned from the evidence of the senses as one grasps that reality does not contradict itself).
I find it interesting that the concept of God has similarities to the concept of the cosmos as a whole (except that there is no evidence that the cosmos is conscious... it would take a hell of a long time for it to "think," anyway). The known universe is "omnipresent" as it is everywhere simultaneously, though the speed of light, presumably, limits the speed of communication from one part to another (unless physics can prove otherwise). The cosmos is "omnipotent," at least in the sense that one cannot defy the laws inherent in its structure. And it could be personified as "omniscient" as the truth is implicitly embedded in the relations of physical reality (and made explicit through conceptualization and language of conscious beings).
Of course, many fine thinkers have shown the contradictions inherent in trying to combine these concepts in the nature of a singular being. However, because of the similarites to theology, I see possibilities for prying people away from mysticism. The first step might be taking "The Father" out of God (the fear factor). Or perhaps for some, that will be the last thing to go, and the first thing to do is point out the conceptual similiarities to "the cosmos" while pointing out the logical contradictions of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence at some point. I'll let you know if I have any success!