[Davin]

Drew_2013 wrote

None. Unless you're going to go around telling other people they need to also hold that belief, then you have a burden of proof.

I agree, if I’m going to share my opinion in this forum I should justify such an opinion. However I’m not on the hook to prove it conclusively unless I state it’s a fact God exists and created the universe.

If you're going to go around advocating for something, then the burden of proof is on you.

Drew_2013 wrote

That is not what a burden of proof is. The burden of proof is the reasonable responsibility of someone claiming something to back up their their claims. The reason it's useful, is that any idiot can claim something, but we don't take anything seriously until the claim can be backed up with evidence.

Fair enough. If I opined that Joe Montana was the greatest QB ever, I would provide stats that back up that claim. That wouldn’t prove it to be true and it may not persuade you it is true but I would fulfil my burden to support an opinion.

Sure, to support an opinion that you keep to yourself.

Drew_2013 wrote

Nope. There are no facts that point directly to a creator god.

Evidence is simply facts that comport with or make a belief more likely than not. In many cases circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone with a higher burden of evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn’t necessary to provide direct evidence. For instance I believe in the existence of black holes even though only indirect evidence has been established.

We're not talking about a court of law. And no, circumstantial is not enough to criminally convict anyone, it either takes some hard evidence or a bad jury. The thing about circumstantial evidence, is that it doesn't satisfy reasonable doubts. While it is true that there doesn't need to be direct evidence, the evidence does need to directly point to something. For instance, the light bending around something that we can't see, is not direct evidence of the black hole, but since it would take something extremely massive to bend the light in such a way, the evidence points directly to something with a large mass that is bending the light which directly points to a black hole.

Drew_2013 wrote

That's right, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I wouldn’t speak for all atheists some atheists believe there is sufficient evidence to render the opinion God doesn’t exist. Some atheists feel exactly the same way but prefer to say they lack belief because they believe it relieves them of any burden of evidence.

I don't speak for all atheists, I just know what the term means. You are attaching meaning onto a term where it doesn't belong. It doesn't matter if some atheists believed in star shitting penguins, the term still means simply, the lack of belief in a god or gods.