Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Simon Moon]

What you're describing sounds like agnosticism, not atheism.

You may not believe THAT a deity of some sort exists. But you're fully open to the possibility that a deity could exist. That it could be of one particular religion, and that any one of these religions could be true. That your own decision to be an atheist could be a stupid one.

In principle, what you're calling atheism entails all of the above possibilities.

And don't you even try to tell me the possibilities are unlikely. You haven't done the math on them.

Atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive positions. The vast majority of atheists do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

Atheism is a position that concerns lack BELIEF.
Agnosticism is a position that concerns what is unknown or unknowable.

Belief is the physiological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true. There are only 2 positions: either one accepts the premise that a god exists is true, or they don't accept it. If one accepts the premise that a god exists is true, they are a theist. ANYTHING else is atheism.

Atheism for most atheists is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. My atheism will continue as long as there continues to be insufficient evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists. I am open to the possibility that a god exists.