I have yet to assert anything. It is lazy to assert a-theism if you are not going to prove no deities exist. You're saying, "No theist has convinced me." It is just as fair to say, "No atheist has convinced me." That's why "burden of proof" atheism is known as soft or weak atheism.
Point out where I claimed you asserted anything. No. "No atheist has convinced me." Makes zero sense. Atheists aren't trying to convince you of anything. Which god do you believe in?
Yes, and that's a logical problem. Atheists would like to forward a weak position, "No gods exists, but we are too lazy to back that position up." Furthermore, "The fact that none of my evangelical friends nor websites, say, have convinced me of anything, I assert no-godism."
Again, no. That's not how logic works. That is also not how Burden of Proof works. No intelligent atheist would ever assert a negative. That's just Logic 101...a negative cannot be proven. You assert no-godism. Uhm, you are claiming a negative. What evidence do you have for "no-godism"?
I've acknowledged your position, and you re-assert. These "ways of being" or religions, if we can include Buddhism, say, need to be practiced to be "believed". Christian evangelicals say pray for Jesus to enter your life. Like, just look in the microscope.
I repeated facts because you have twice now demonstrated that you are ignorant of the words you are using and making silly, illogical musings. That is not "re-asser"ing. I don't see that you acknowledged anything of my position because you keep trying to assert dumb shit.
I acknowledged your position as being known as weak or soft atheism. That's what it is called. I rephrased it to call it "burden of proof" atheism for your benefit. That's your repeated position. If you don't have a million dollars, prove it. The divorce court justice wants to know. That happens.
Making up definitions and calling them whatever you want doesn't benefit anyone. You keep using Burden of Proof without demonstrating you know what it means. You are still wrong.
I’m not making up definitions. Soft/weak atheism = what you describe: no evidence → no belief. That’s personally fine, but it’s not a truth claim—just non-commitment. Strong/hard atheism is “no gods exist.” My point is about the stance’s strength, not its legality under burden of proof.
I described the definition of Atheism, which is the rejection of the assertion. I didn't say anything about belief. I reject any assertion wherein a negative claim is used. I reject the philosophical notion of a hard atheist. It is illogical and stupid.
So you’re a “rejectionist” atheist—no belief, no claim. Great! It's your life to live. But philosophy still recognizes hard atheism (that no gods exist). You can call it illogical, but the philosophers who write your logic textbooks keep it in the discussion.
You can't prove a negative.
On the other hand, when theists claim God exists through witness, the doubter can say, “I tried that Hindu (or Christian or Muslim, etc.) experiment, and it didn’t work for me.” Thus the agnostic remains. Because if it did work, the atheist’s claim would be disproven. Thus, experimentation works.
You cannot prove some negatives absolutely. Lazy soft/weak atheists simply withhold belief without claiming proof. Hard atheists assert “no gods exist,” but burden stays on claimants since proving universal absence is often impossible—think Bertrand Russell’s teapot.
God, if you exist, hit me with a lightning bolt and cancer, right now.
An out of the blue response! Reminds me how I was struck by lightning once in Charlevoix, QC by the river. And how cancer runs in my family. If that prayer doesn't work for you, Christians do have the Lord's Prayer. Which reminds me of the song "Walk This Way." Anyway . . .