Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny.

I suppose you don't believe in Mermaids. Therefore you must be making a positive claim by being an amermaidist according to your reasoning.

While amermaidism is defined as "a lack of belief in mermaids" and thus makes no positive claim, amermaidism itself does not escape positive claims. What positive claim?

There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by amermaidism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of Mermaids has not been met.
b) The claim that amermaidism is a more rational position than mermaidism.
(sometimes) c) The claim that mermaidism is irrational.

You cannot be an amermaidism without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

So if you are an amermaidist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Therefore I ask you to defend your positive claim that Mermaids do not exist.

I await your response.

Rahul

I didn't know there was such a thing as "amermaidism". Do you post on amermaidist forums too?

But yes, if you apply my argument to "amermaidism", the same would apply. Namely

(a) If I claim that the burden of proof for the existence of mermaids has not been met
then I need to explain what this burden is.

I personally don't make this claim. I avoid any claims of "burden of proof" in general. However others do make this claim, and those who do must answer it.

(b) If I claim to be an "amermaidist" I need to show how that is more rational than mermaidism.

This is trivially met with the response that no evidence has been presented to me for the existence of mermaids.

Now since I have answered yours, perhaps you could answer the same for your atheism.

I await your response.