(March 8, 2017 at 2:38 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: A lack of belief does not require a burden of proof, because a lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of proof and valid arguments to sufficiently justify a knowledge claim. Knowledge claims require proof. Lacking a belief in something is not a claim (because knowledge, which is justified true belief, is a subset of belief) and therefore does not carry a burden of proof. We must start with a lack of belief as the default position, because otherwise we will end up believing things that have not met their burden of proof.
In terms of what is actually true, are only two possibilities: a god exists, or a god doesn't exist. Atheism and theism only address the former claim. Theists believe this claim, and atheists do not. Atheists lack a belief in the claim "a god exists" because it has not met its burden of proof.
Also, having an opinion about "x" not mean you have a belief in "x". To believe something is to become convinced that it is true, which is not a prerequisite for having an opinion about that something.
By redefining atheism as a "lack of belief" you mean non-theist and as such now encompass all the positions other than theism (atheists, agnostics, verificationists, babies, the impaired, my dog, and park benches). So 'atheism' ceases to have any meaning pertaining to a view of how the world is and simply becomes a psychological state.
