(June 21, 2018 at 10:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And I think that you understand; but again to clarify, when atheists are saying that it is "just a lack of belief" they are not saying anything about an objective truth, but only that they are merely not convinced. They are just providing information about their mental state on the matter and not claiming that anything is false. This would be a claim that would have a share in a burden of proof.
I tend to agree with this, insofar as atheism is presented as "just a lack of belief". However, I think atheism stands on firmer ground than that -- especially when dealing with historical claims (i.e., 'special revelation') or particular cosmologies derived from religious texts. But the atheist's burden of evidence, in these cases, is not provided by "atheism" but by commonly accepted standards of evidence in various relevant fields (e.g., archaeology, history, biology, etc.).
I don't think we are really disagreeing here. I'm just clarifying my stance.