Atheism

[FatAndFaithless]

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?

I agree that anyone who asserts that "God exists" is false assumes as much a burden of proof as the person claiming it's true.  And I also agree that people on this forum (and in general, really) can be less-than-careful with their words.  However, I think the majority of atheists on the forum would, when asked, not assert that the statement "God exists" is false, but rather just that they do not believe the statement has met its burden of proof to be considered true.

That being said, there are some folks that will make the assertion that there are no god(s), I'm just not one of them, unless the definition of the god in question is logically incoherent.