Why atheism is irrational

[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."

I've been tested on reading comprehension ability before in the higher education institutions I attended. I've always tested perfect on them. It's not my ability to discern your writing that is the problem. It's your ideas that aren't making a lot of sense.

Academic literature may not frequently use the term "burden of proof" but all scientific theories have nothing but eternal requirements for it.

Anything that makes a claim has a burden of proof.

When I say that I don't believe in a deity, the only burden of proof I am making is that I don't believe something. There is no other claim there.

If you ask me why I don't believe in a deity I only ask, "Why should I?".

No one has provided me with any evidence to believe in such a thing.