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.
Never said anything about belief.
I mentioned belief; some atheists say, “I believe no deity exists.” Back to burden of proof, it lies with the prosecution in criminal court. The defense only needs to show “not proven.” That’s why the weak ‘burden of proof’ lets people get away with murder.
I've never heard an atheist say that. If they did, then they need to select better words because of people like you. You still fail to demonstrate your understanding of Burden of Proof.
Thinkers Bertrand Russell, Anthony Flew, Michael Martin & Richard Dawkins define strong atheism as believing no gods exist. They distinguish it from mere lack of belief. It’s a solid philosophical stance, not casual doubt. On “Burden of Proof”—show how it's not getting away with murder.