There is no God.

[Mudhammam]

---

I wholeheartedly embrace the label "anti-theist." I wish more atheists would as I see it to be the only moral and logical response to religious thinking, all things considered. But I reject the claim that I'm portraying atheists as somehow dishonest when they shift the burden of proof back to whom it belongs (the believers). I've stated that much clearly--the burden is not on us, but we also shouldn't simply sit around and wait for theists to try to make their case...they never have and never will, yet so many continue to be deceived. We should, in my opinion, be actively making the case against God, because science gives us a pretty good one.

---

And that's the point, isn't it. Anti-theism is a positive claim which has a burden of proof and you respond to that burden by using rebuttals of theistic claims (e.g. biblical historical claims vs archaeological evidence, religious 'omni' claims vs logical absolutes). Atheists are not being dishonest when shifting the burden of proof back but if you hold an antitheistic position and do the same, that is dishonest. By then trying to classify all atheists as antitheists, you mischaracterise the atheists position on burdens of proof. That can be dangerous as it lets theists accuse atheists of being dishonest. Does that make sense?

Yeah Ben, I see what you're saying and why my original post may have seemed misguided, or a mischaracterization of atheism. At least in the court of public opinion at this point, anti-theism is pretty much viewed as atheism, and you're right to be concerned that I'm contributing to that misunderstanding by not being more clear.