The "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner.5 The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. ...Sigh. If there really were "credible reasons", it's pointless to argue in the subjunctive about what we should believe if there were no credible reasons. (And note the switch in the article from evidence to "credible reasons".)
Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God.
The "real" position of atheists is that all these godbaggers are completely full of shit, and we are no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
(via The Poached Egg)