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.

Easy, gods used to do devine interventions all the time. Didn’t sacrifice to Neptunus before your sea journey? His mood storm sinks your ship. Didn’t please Mars before your battle? You fight at bad weather and the enemy has surprise reinforcements.

Modern day gods? They left a secretary or something. Buhbuh you did something bad, I put you on the naughty list but I’m a weak noodle so your punishment will have to wait until after your death. When your soul which is not your body but has all senses asif it were because we antromorph everything, gets hurt.

If you can bomb a kids hospital without getting struck by lightning, there are no gods. There are millions of people praying for peace and the save return of their children in the ukraine war on both sides, nothing happens. I claim that the presence of a god would be obvious if they took their job description seriously. Like a managers/auditors presence can be felt in the office without seeing him.

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.

Agnostics are cowards

Well if you say, for example, Christianity is faith based, then you could argue that atheism is faith based as well. Faith that there is no god.