Zincy 
In Vino Veritas
[@altopony](/forums/generals/topics/tartarus?post_id=5343309#post_5343309)
That's actually not correct. For most atheists, it's the lack of any demonstratable evidence that God exists, or at the very least that a specific God does not exist.
If someone comes up to you with a box, and says that inside the box is a green cube, but refuses to provide any evidence to there being a green cube inside the box, there is not an equivalence in belief if you say that you don't believe them.
You have no way of testing if there is, in fact, a green cube.YAnd you can not prove a negative in absence of direct evidence to the contrary. It is up to the man making the assertion about the cube to provide evidence for the cubes existence.
Just as it is fundamentally up to theists to provide evidence that their deity exists if they intend to make people believe in them. Otherwise, it is perfectly logically sound to reject their assertion.
That's actually not correct. For most atheists, it's the lack of any demonstratable evidence that God exists, or at the very least that a specific God does not exist.
If someone comes up to you with a box, and says that inside the box is a green cube, but refuses to provide any evidence to there being a green cube inside the box, there is not an equivalence in belief if you say that you don't believe them.
You have no way of testing if there is, in fact, a green cube.
Just as it is fundamentally up to theists to provide evidence that their deity exists if they intend to make people believe in them. Otherwise, it is perfectly logically sound to reject their assertion.