Atheism is when you go around acting like you know everything because you pretend you use science to guide every step of your life.
I disagree with this.As far as I am concerned, the only way I could come to have a burden of proof regarding this position is if I were to make a negative claim: e.g.
A god or gods do not exist.
That would require me to defend that statement.
I disagree with this.
The burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim. If you think about it, it could hardly be otherwise.
I agree, that's just daft.I can't recall who it was, but it was a then quite familiar poster on RS who started off something like:
"Gods don't exist, prove me wrong" - now, that's not quoted word for word, but the general idea was the same. This is of course problematic: it's not possible to stake a contention and expect others to invalidate the claim. If the claim is going to be staked, it needs to offer support itself.
If somebody says, 'god exists', I have no idea of what they just said.