You still don't understand that atheism cannot have a burden of proof, because it is not a claim, it is a response to a claim. If your going to say atheism has a burden of proof then you have to show what claim it is making.

I understand perfectly that atheism cannot have a burden of proof because it is not a claim.I also understand that it is a response to a claim.
Again,read the quote,i think you've misunderstood me.

(July 5, 2015 at 11:40 am)pool Wrote: Yeah,if theism is wrong then there is no reason for atheism to exist.
If you still exist THEN the burden of proof if on you.

Seeing how theism is believing in a god when even theists don't even know what god is,theism is a belief that tumbles down because of itself.

Conclusion: theism is nonsense.
No reason for atheism(and any sub set of atheism)to exist anymore.
If you choose to exist then the burden of proof is on you.

That is what i'm saying.

Edit: Added: "(any any sub set of atheism)"

This is the quote and it reads as if your saying if atheists exist then they have a burden of proof.

(July 5, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 11:40 am)pool Wrote: Yeah,if theism is wrong then there is no reason for atheism to exist.
If you still exist THEN the burden of proof if on you.

Seeing how theism is believing in a god when even theists don't even know what god is,theism is a belief that tumbles down because of itself.

Conclusion: theism is nonsense.
No reason for atheism(and any sub set of atheism)to exist anymore.
If you choose to exist then the burden of proof is on you.

That is what i'm saying.

Edit: Added: "(any any sub set of atheism)"

This is the quote and it reads as if your saying if atheists exist then they have a burden of proof.

That was how I read it.

I have a feeling pool may not be communicating in his first language.

Yes.

But what you're missing is the part where i explicitly states that the burden of proof is on the atheists in the event of considering theism as bullshit and choosing not to dissolve atheism.
If you're confused as to why atheism have to be dissolved in the event theism is declared bullshit - read the quote again and more carefully you will eventually understand it.

@downbeatplumb, My first language is Malayalam,my second language is Hindi,English is my third language.

"Well, to paraphrase Mozart, all the subatomic particles are there, I just have to put them in the right order." - Sheldon Cooper

(July 5, 2015 at 2:09 pm)pool Wrote: Yes.

But what you're missing is the part where i explicitly states that the burden of proof is on the atheists in the event of considering theism as bullshit and choosing not to dissolve atheism.
If you're confused as to why atheism have to be dissolved in the event theism is declared bullshit - read the quote again and more carefully you will eventually understand it.

@downbeatplumb, My first language is Malayalam,my second language is Hindi,English is my third language.

I understand your position and it is wrong.

Let me see if I can explain this.

I am an atheist as I do not believe that there is a god.

What I have not said is that there is definitely no god, as things stand I would place the likelihood of there being god as being as near to zero as makes no difference. So I remain unpersuaded.

What should I label myself as if not atheist.

(July 5, 2015 at 2:09 pm)pool Wrote: Yes.

But what you're missing is the part where i explicitly states that the burden of proof is on the atheists in the event of considering theism as bullshit and choosing not to dissolve atheism.
If you're confused as to why atheism have to be dissolved in the event theism is declared bullshit - read the quote again and more carefully you will eventually understand it.

@downbeatplumb, My first language is Malayalam,my second language is Hindi,English is my third language.

"Well, to paraphrase Mozart, all the subatomic particles are there, I just have to put them in the right order." - Sheldon Cooper

Atheist is a lack of belief in gods, there is no circumstance in which it would adopt the burden of proof. I have read your quote 50 times it doesn't make any sense, because I don't think you understand the terms your using or how the burden of proof works.

Furthermore, how many of us have repeatedly stated that in the event of the appearance of a god or adequate evidence, we would be happy to acknowledge it's existence and adjust our beliefs accordingly. You are dishonest in any language.

You keep referring us to your incoherent quote. We have read your quote. You are not understanding the words? It makes no sense what so ever. You can keep telling yourself it does, but it does not. Please explain to me like I am five years old, what am I missing from your quotes? It clearly states the burden of proof should be on the Atheist side? Which makes no sense.

(July 4, 2015 at 9:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I have no -clue- what that question is supposed to mean.  The right to a thought?  Is that remotely enforcable one way or another, do rights protect thoughts or prohibit them?  Who would say that we don't, and who would know, and what could or would be done about it?

I think OP kinda meant "having the right to be atheist" in the sense of "can atheism ever be a rationally justified position to take". at least that's how I read it...