>>45
>>41 here
i think the biggest mistake you make is that you think that atheists somehow actively deny the existence of a deity, when in fact they simply do not believe in the notion. It's not that god CAN'T exist, it's that one doesn't. It's almost an assumption, instead of a direct claim. Atheists assume there's no god because there's nothing that would show there is one, not that there CAN'T be a god. Imagine a time before the notion of god. if you went up to anyone, and asked them if they believe in god, they'd give you a puzzled look and ask "what is a god?". it's somewhat the same thing now, but because we live in a world where you'd never get that response because god is such a prevalent notion, the answer has become "no, i don't." But the idea is the same. if you asked that man long ago "why don't you believe in god?" after explaining the notion of a deity to him, he would end up asking "what reason would i have TO believe in one?". With this there's no logical reason why that man would have any burden of proof on him because he doesn't claim anything. The ONLY reason theists think atheists have any sort of burden of proof is because we live in a time where the notion of god is everywhere, so to say there isn't one is suddenly a claim. Just as if you lived in a world where the notion of the Great Green Arkleseizure made the universe, saying you don't believe in it is then also suddenly a claim, while on any other world the notion would have never come up. So, even though the environment in which the question is asked is different than that man long ago, the burden of proof still lies on the person making the claim about a deity.