Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Amarok]

On this we must disagree

Why ? I don't see it normal for me to answer your argument with a blunt " No, this is false" justified by the burden of proof in a healty conversation.

Because i'm not saying that it's false ' I'm saying it has yet to be justified .

---

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

So could but that does not invalidate the idea. Not it says people who make positive claims should . Why on earth should anyone need to give a reason not to believe in something ?