Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

I've even had people argue, that only claims of what are true have the burden of proof.  That they can claim that something is false (rejecting) and have no burden.  However this is bad logic, because even when you are claiming something is false, you are still making an objective truth claim.

On here? I haven't seen that myself but I am happy to be proved wrong. The whole point of a burden of proof is to determine whether a claim is true. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand what they were saying?

Yes.... actually I think only on here have I seen this.  I think that what was confusing them is that the burden of proof  is on the one making a claim of truth.   Which was interpreted to mean that you can say something is false, without having to give reason for that claim.   But in claiming that it is false, you are making a claim about objective truth. 

And to clarify, I'm not trying to point fingers and I'm not saying that this applies to all atheists.  I'm not as concerned with what has happened in the past, but the future.  Talking about the definition of "atheist" doesn't get you out of a claim that you just made.   Would you agree?