The burden of proof lies on Theists to state proof/evidence that a deity of some kind exists. Often arguments state that you cannot prove a higher power does not exist, which is an appeal from ignorance. The burden of proof is not on atheists to prove a higher power does not exist, but for theists to prove that a higher power exists. By shifting the burden of proof, you are appealing to ignorance.
A good example is stating that God exists because science does not have an answer for (insert phrase here), and therefore it must be a higher power. That is an argument from (appeal to) ignorance.
The 'argument from ignorance' is, typically, a standard part of an apologist's arsenal, and this line of reasoning can arise in a variety of forms - whatever the details, the theist alleges that there is some fact (about existence, the world, universe, etc.) that the non-theist/naturalist/materialist cannot explain (very well, or at all), and the non-theist's 'failure' is then used to infer the superiority of theism.
Theists have to be Ignorant of the findings of the last century, otherwise they would all be agnostic.
They have not discovered any genuine reliable impartial evidence for their doctrines nor heroes.
In Christianity, there is no evidence Jesus ever performed a single Miracle, Nor that he rose from the Dead, so to strongly believe that he did is Ignorance of the truth.
Judaism: Exodus never happened and it is now believe Moses didn't exist, so the core belief of the Torah and Old Testament is false. BTW non-ignorant Jewish scholars discovered these.
Islam, There is no evidence for much of the tales of Muhammad, the bravery of Muhammad appears to have been added in by Caliphs after Muhammad's death, in the same way that the Miracles of Jesus were added in by Gospel writers decades after Jesus's death. So many Muslims are Ignorant of this knowledge, also that the hijab was introduced to hide Muhammad's depravity or under age wife. Theists are mostly Ignorant of the reality behind their Theism.
I have several acquaintances who have faith, and while this will be anecdotal at best, I feel it will contribute to the discussion.
One of them is a younger male, and he fell in with a TV evangelist, Benny Hin, and went to a sermon and felt "The Anointing". Since then so much evidence has surfaced to prove this fellow's fraudulence it's laughable. However, my acquaintance maintains that he "felt" something and that is the basis for his faith. He cannot explain the experience, nor why specifically it immediately and necessarily denotes faith, but there it is. Inexplicable AND incontrovertible, because no one can disprove internal phenomena- except maybe with a brain scan. I hadn't thought of that!
The other is a mid-to-older gentleman who was raised Catholic, but "wasn't very religious" until his step father began experiencing medical difficulties. Through his travails, there were numerous instances where by sheer timing and improbability, the step father was preserved from death. I think at one point his ventilator had stopped, but someone discovered it "just it time," and another time, he had fallen, and just before his daughter left the house she thought she heard a voice tell her to go back upstairs. It's this series of coincidences that serve as the basis for this man's faith now. The step father eventually passed, but the experience stayed. And again, it's inexplicable AND incontrovertible because no one else was there and no one else can prove it was anything other than divine intervention.
In both cases we have people clinging to very shabby, very thin evidence, but the meaning they have constructed is inviolate- it's tremendously strong. It has to be, I suppose, to compensate for the fact that it is filling in an absolute intellectual void. There's no mental content, no reasonable scientific doubt, no effort to explain the experiences in any other terms, simply *faith*
How many times have you pointed out to a theist that they don't have any proof god exists, and they come back with the ever so clever "You can't prove god DOESN'T exist!" As if one could prove a negative. Faith is the belief without evidence, and theism requires faith.
If you ever debated/discussed with the more enlightened Christians on this site, I'm sure you could say that they have more/better reasons than a mere appeal to ignorance. Ignorance, however, is a fact, not only to theists but also to agnostics/atheists. Ignorance is universal and boundless. It is unfair to generalize the theists in this way.
There are many reasons to think this is false, and if you ask any logician, atheist or theist, they will likely tell you that most religious people do not make an appeal to ignorance when they believe in God.
Here is just one argument to the conclusion that this simply cannot be the case given real religious belief in the world:
1. Most religious belief is not inferential (it is not believed because it is the conclusion of a sound or unsound argument which the believer takes to be sound).
2. If 1, then most religious belief is not based on an appeal to ignorance (since the only way for a belief to be based on an appeal to ignorance is for it to be inferential).
3. Ergo most religious belief is not based on an appeal to ignorance.
An appeal to ignorance is an argument where one of the premises is that person doesn't know something or can't think of something and the conclusion is inferred from the lack of knowledge. But beliefs are not arguments. Beliefs are propositions. Beliefs may be arrived at by appeals to ignorance, but beliefs cannot themselves be appeals to ignorance.
Atheist: "HURR, you make up God based off ignorance"
Atheist: "but I need no evidence to back up my personal opinion that God does not exist"
Atheist; I so smart every argument is wrong because my views are based on reson, which everyone else besides me doesn't have!
No, I think atheist views are built on arguments from ignorance.
No reasonable adult feels this way. Adults do not just accept that God exists, instead they conduct their own studies and research. Based on evidence and fact they decide whether or not to believe.
I believe in God, as a child I just believed but as an adult I study and research and base my opinion on facts of life which has led me to continue my faith in God.