School for Christianity

[Esquilax]

Wrong-o! Atheism is the rejection of currently extant theistic beliefs. There's no requirement that one believe in no creators at all, just that those religions that have a specific image of the creator of the universe haven't yet fulfilled their burden of proof: I can, for instance, believe in a creator of the universe and still be an atheist, so long as that creator is not a theistic god. I don't- the most intellectually honest position is to simply say "I don't know"- but I could if I wanted to.

See the bold, there may not be requirements, but every atheist put standards to their non belief, so what is the difference.

Uh, that it's not a requirement? And therefore not a core part of what atheism is? Moreover, you're aware that those standards of non belief we atheists have vary from person to person too, right? Look around you, there are tons of atheists on this very forum that can attest to that.

This argument is so terrible: it'd be like if I held you accountable to some batshit crazy, violent fringe idea or some christian sect, not because you specifically hold that belief, but because some christians do. You'd rightly be annoyed that I did that, and you'd find it weak, as an argument, right? Why's there a difference here?

Why am I obligated to defend not my own position, but what you think my position should be?