Thanks Azor. This helps a lot. It was a while since I was a Jehovah's Witness and of course they had the incorrect view of everybody, especially atheists, so this aids me in understanding.
In light of this please correct me if I am wrong (as I just want to see if I got it):
So the atheism you are talking about is within the paradigm of what Christianity views as important, namely what one believes, yes?
I ask this because faith is not an issue in Judaism. Whether Jesus ever existed is not important either. A Jew’s belief in G-d’s existence means little in and of itself. Faith is just a mental acknowledgement of something, and in this Eastern paradigm believing in something has just as much effect and merit as not believing in it. We are defined by our actions, not just by what set of convictions we adhere to. Response to the G-d issue, for or against, is what is meaningful in the world, and a belief in the existence of G-d or the lack of such mental acknowledgement neither adds nor takes away the value of the good anyone can bring to life and society. You are good because you do good, not because you claim to believe in a set of mental lines of creed, religious or not, which you claim brings enlightenment or truth.
But within the Christian paradigm where I lived in when I was a JW, I understand that what one mentally acknowledges holds great weight. A mere “belief” can mean salvation or the lack of it, the difference between being accepted and being shunned.
So it is just within this Christian paradigm in which a non-theist who claims, “I will believe if you can prove it to me,” that this statements are being made. They are not absolute, in other words. Like doubting Thomas, if the deity proves itself then the theist’s claims that he or she will offer up mental acknowledgement of and trust in that deity will occur. It is tantamount to saying if one does not agree with the creed of one group or the definition of one deity over another, the theist will stand their ground unless one comes that changes their mind—kind of like(but not exactly) shopping around for a church or religion (because the important thing in this paradigm is what one mentally acknowledges)?
But it is not the same as me saying that despite Jesus existing or not, I don’t believe he is the Messiah my people have waited for. Where I have no problem telling a returned Jesus this, the atheist on the other hand would accept miracles as proof of a deity (if Jesus showed up on their doorstep amid miraculous events they would "sign up" for theism). I gather then the meaning of their stand is conditional? In other words you wouldn’t tell a god who performed miracles, “I still don’t believe in you, even though you moved those mountains and raised those dead people.” If the mountains moved and the dead rose, you would believe in the one who performed such things.
For me Jesus can move all the mountains he wants in front of me, it doesn’t make him the Messiah and I don’t mind telling him so. This changes not whether he truly exists or he doesn’t. (But some atheists might change their minds in the face of such things, perhaps?) Okay, I get it. I also see the logic of taking the other stand of believing because of seeing great wonders.
Thanks again for your input. I was curious if it was comparable to my view or not. I understand now.