I…don’t need to fight you. It’s not about burden of proof; it’s about the definition of the word. Atheism is—as we agree—merely a yes/no classification of the belief in a deity; it is not a belief system in itself. As such, someone can be an atheist while still having a religion, which is a belief system, one that may or may not involve a deity.
Burden of proof only applies if one is making a claim in an objective context, not when one is making a claim in a subjective context.
Exactly. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity; anything extra is just personalized spices.
Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. Atheists have a burden of proof of a negative. Only agnostics get the “not a belief system” card.
Fight me.
I…don’t need to fight you. It’s not about burden of proof; it’s about the definition of the word. Atheism is—as we agree—merely a yes/no classification of the belief in a deity; it is not a belief system in itself. As such, someone can be an atheist while still having a religion, which is a belief system, one that may or may not involve a deity.
Burden of proof only applies if one is making a claim in an objective context, not when one is making a claim in a subjective context.
You can’t prove a negative.
Prove to me there isn’t a teapot floating around Saturn, or that Gravity isn’t a panda in the centre of every planet pulling on invisible strings.
That’s where you’re wrong, bucko.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility