Why atheism is irrational

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

There is no burden of proof. If you believe something, explain why, simple as that.

Hrm.

Didn't you say this:

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

Here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21066.html

I must say, you aren't very consistent with your statements.

Rahul Rahul Rahul!

I'm finding a consistent pattern of reading and comprehension difficulties among you guys here. Is that normal? Because in the same thread, I said

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.
-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.
-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

Granted, it takes a little bit of reasoning to go from "I don't believe in BoP. But since you do, I'm willing to use it, insofar as I define it this way." But I think you guys are smart enough to make this reasoning.