Total Posts:104|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Atheism Have a Burden of Proof

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 9:08:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

I reject YOUR CLAIM that god/s exist. No BoP sorry.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 1:04:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

It is the case with Atheism..... Strong Atheism; not Weak Atheism.
srehtiw
Posts: 491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:28:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 9:08:25 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

I reject YOUR CLAIM that god/s exist. No BoP sorry.

Why not?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 2:38:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

It all depends on how the debate is formatted.

-If it's "God exists" then atheism doesn't have BoP.
-If it's "God does not exist", then atheism has BoP.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 4:32:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

Depends what you mean by "atheism." Most atheists nowadays are agnostics in the traditional sense of the word. But the word "atheism" has come to mean agnostics, weak atheists, strong atheists, and whatever else.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:31:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anyone making a positive claim is expected to provide the burden of evidence for that claim.

However, there is a difference between "I don't believe x is true" and "I believe x is false"

With the former not changing BoP and the latter changing it as it is a positive claim.

IE: saying I believe God does not exist and I don't believe God exists have different burdens of proof.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 5:37:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism is not simply a vacuum of beliefs.

Atheists posit a world view absent of God who they deem unnecessary, even though God is a non-contingent, necessary being.

I'm a Non-Theist, but even back when I was a strong atheist, I acknowledged the fact that strong and weak atheists both had a burden of proof to justify their world view.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:00:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have yet to discover an atheist willing to debate the scientific fact that all life derives from an intelligent source
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:07:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 5:37:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Atheism is not simply a vacuum of beliefs.

Atheists posit a world view absent of God who they deem unnecessary, even though God is a non-contingent, necessary being.

I'm a Non-Theist, but even back when I was a strong atheist, I acknowledged the fact that strong and weak atheists both had a burden of proof to justify their world view.

THANK YOU! Finally someone who is using terms correctly.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
gr33k_fr33k5
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:08:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:00:42 PM, dadman wrote:
I have yet to discover an atheist willing to debate the scientific fact that all life derives from an intelligent source

Well arguing against "scientific facts" (if these exist) isn't really fun now is it. . .
I am free, free indeed!

ignorance is bliss
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:11:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
isn't really fun now is it . . .

yes .. the science exists .. and no .. not fun for the atheists .. I'm sorry .. agnostics
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:17:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:00:42 PM, dadman wrote:
I have yet to discover an atheist willing to debate the scientific fact that all life derives from an intelligent source

Firstly, the fact that you are already stating that life derives from an intelligent source is actually a fact, but no concrete, testable, falsifiable or predictive evidence or theory is part of the problem. Scientifically; if you can't demonstrate it, it is not a fact.

Secondly, the Dover trial, a search from this very website and a reasonable search of any atheist YouTube channel show that Atheists are very willing to debate Intelligent Design, they often do, they point out the unevidenced and non-scientific aspects of it more times than it is possible to say. As such, this particular aspect of your statement is not true.

Finally, I am more than willing to debate scientific facts; however as no such "facts" are ever presented that fall under the category of science: Testability, Falsifiability and reasonable Predictivity; the point is fairly moot.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:23:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
firstly tha fact dat yo azz be already statin dat game derives from a intelligent source is straight-up a gang ban gin fact but no concrete testable falsifiable or predictizzle evidence or theory is part of tha problem scientifically if you can't demonstrate it it aint a gang ban gin ' fact secondly tha dover trial a search from dis straight-up joint n' a reasonable search of any atheist YallTube channel show dat Atheists is straight-up willin ta rap battle Intelligent Design they often do they point up tha unevidenced n' non-scientistical aspectz of it mo' times than it is possible ta say as such dis particular aspect of yo' statement aint true: finally I be mo' than willin ta rap battle scientistical facts however as no such facts is eva presented dat fall under tha category of science testabilitizzle falsifiabilitizzle n' reasonable predictivitizzle tha point is fairly moot .

....................... next
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:28:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:23:52 PM, dadman wrote:
firstly tha fact dat yo azz be already statin dat game derives from a intelligent source is straight-up a gang ban gin fact but no concrete testable falsifiable or predictizzle evidence or theory is part of tha problem scientifically if you can't demonstrate it it aint a gang ban gin ' fact secondly tha dover trial a search from dis straight-up joint n' a reasonable search of any atheist YallTube channel show dat Atheists is straight-up willin ta rap battle Intelligent Design they often do they point up tha unevidenced n' non-scientistical aspectz of it mo' times than it is possible ta say as such dis particular aspect of yo' statement aint true: finally I be mo' than willin ta rap battle scientistical facts however as no such facts is eva presented dat fall under tha category of science testabilitizzle falsifiabilitizzle n' reasonable predictivitizzle tha point is fairly moot .

....................... next

Ironically, the time it must have taken you to write this reply is actually greater than the time it would have taken for you to actually google, present and link testable, predictive and falsifiable evidence or predictions of intelligent design were your statement of fact actually fact.

To understand why such things are actually important is pretty simple. Invoking a supernatural cause to explain any real world scenario has almost invariably turned out to be wrong, has very often held back science from real and beneficial knowledge, and has never contribute in any way shape or form to the betterment of mankind. However, everything you see in modern civilization is built on the back of the predictive, testable and falsifiable models that come out of scientific theories.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
how bout a simple true or false question for Ramshutu .. Is DNA considered to be code ...... yes or no
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 6:48:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:33:33 PM, dadman wrote:
how bout a simple true or false question for Ramshutu .. Is DNA considered to be code ...... yes or no

As you are being strict in making me definitively say YES or NO, I have to use the strict definitions; from the Free online dictionary, we have the following descriptions beside which I place whether DNA matches this definition, or not.

"1: A systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws."
No.

"2. A systematic collection of regulations and rules of procedure or conduct: a traffic code."
No.

"3.a. A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
No.

"b. A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
No.

"4. A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer; a computer program."
No.

5. Genetics The genetic code.
Yes. But I'm pretty sure this isn't want you meant.

Asking the question as you do; It cannot be considered code. Not in STRICT comparable way.

However, there are some analogs, in terms of the way it operates which is why it is often referred to as "code", but it is not code in exactly the way we use that term in any of the above (asside from, obviously, Genetic Code).

The problem is, that in asking a straight-up binary yes and no question where the real answer is "in some ways, sort of" makes it easy for you to distort the answer as both YES and NO are to an extent incorrect.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:11:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:07:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/20/2013 5:37:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Atheism is not simply a vacuum of beliefs.

Atheists posit a world view absent of God who they deem unnecessary, even though God is a non-contingent, necessary being.

I'm a Non-Theist, but even back when I was a strong atheist, I acknowledged the fact that strong and weak atheists both had a burden of proof to justify their world view.

THANK YOU! Finally someone who is using terms correctly.

He said weak atheists as well....
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:13:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
CODE IS DEFINED
as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . .
DNA's definition as a LITERAL CODE ( and not a figurative one ) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's . . .
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages . . .
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: ..
The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins .. Genetic information passes from DNA to an RNA copy and then is READ in the cell by the the ribosome which makes a protein molecule based on the genetic information encoded in DNA . . .
This is the central tenet of molecular biology . . . Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical .. but in fact quite literal in every way . . .

In other words .. the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all ..
it is direct application of mathematics to DNA .. which by definition is a code

......... refute this if you like .. or to make this simple .. just say yes .. I agree
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:15:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

That is false.

Right now there is a man who is on trial for murder. Do you believe he is guilty?

If yes, how did you come to that conclusion?

If no, then according to your reasoning you must believe there is a better chance that he is innocent then guilty. How did you come to that conclusion?

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

Because not having a positive belief in a proposition is not the same thing as having a positive belief in the opposite. My example above demonstrates that it is unreasonable to come to a belief about anything without having a reason to believe it (that follows from the definition of reasonable).

Atheism means "not theism". That follows from the meaning of "-a"
http://www.etymonline.com...-

Someone who does not have a positive belief in theism is an atheist. That's all it means. This definition creates a blanket that those who assert God does not exist fall into as well, but the term does not refer to them. It refers to the "blanket".

You do not have a burden to prove anything when your position is non belief, because that is the default position. The time to hold a belief in anything is when you have a reason to believe it. And if you have a belief in something then you are the one who must provide and defend a reason for taking that step. I trust that I don't need to explain why.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:21:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:13:38 PM, dadman wrote:
CODE IS DEFINED
as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . .
DNA's definition as a LITERAL CODE ( and not a figurative one ) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960's . . .
DNA code has much in common with human language and computer languages . . .
DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: ..
The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins .. Genetic information passes from DNA to an RNA copy and then is READ in the cell by the the ribosome which makes a protein molecule based on the genetic information encoded in DNA . . .
This is the central tenet of molecular biology . . . Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical .. but in fact quite literal in every way . . .

In other words .. the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all ..
it is direct application of mathematics to DNA .. which by definition is a code

......... refute this if you like .. or to make this simple .. just say yes .. I agree

"CODE IS DEFINED as communication between an encoder ( a writer or speaker ) and a decoder ( a reader or listener ) using agreed upon symbols . . ."

The way it is worded; no. No encoder, or decoder as a writer or speaker.

If you defined it thus:

An organised collection of discreete elements that can in some way be transcribed or changed consistently and repeatably into a different form.

Then I can agree.

While there are similarities with what you define and what DNA is, your definitions imply that there is an actor, and go way beyond the demonstrable aspects of DNA, and cannot be said to match DNA exactly; that will only lead to equivocation.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:34:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
your definitions imply that there is an actor, and go way beyond the demonstrable aspects of DNA .

My definition implies nothing ..
the definition it is what it is .. the real issue is ..
are you willing to follow where the evidence leads

what else falls into the parameter of code / information

a writer and a reader of specifically recognized symbols

.......... music . . . blue prints .. name some more
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:46:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
While I'm waiting for Ramshutu to respond to #22 I'll add this ......

To put it into layman"s terms "the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica ..
an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!" . . .
At the same time this immense amount of information is contained in a space that is only 2 millionth of a millimeter thick . . .
Quoting molecular biologist Michael Denton, Sieglie explains that a teaspoon of DNA,
"could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth,
and there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written."

===============
Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.'
For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements:

__ an alphabet or coding system,
__ correct spelling,
__ grammar (a proper arrangement of the words),
__ meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements.
"The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer ..
"have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language."
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 7:55:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
here's a funny one

"An organised collection of discreete elements that can "in some way" be transcribed or changed ............ "

not very scientific .. do you agree ??
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 8:05:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
am I losing you Ramshutu ?? .. are you still in your dictionary ?? .. or are you unwilling to follow the evidence ......... hmmm
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 8:20:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

There are indeed different kinds of atheism.
I am a 'polyatheist'. There are many gods I do not believe in. In my mind, I am convinced they do not exist. i do assert and propose that the gods of the bible and the quran do not exist. And indeed the burden of proof would is on me to prove it. I do not deny this.
As far is the existence of 'a' supernatural god of some sort is concerned, I am agnostic.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 8:22:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
welp !!! .. looks like Ramshutu done went-n-jumped ship . . . typical

for those who would like to continue with this issue http://dadmansabode.dailyforum.net...

merry Christmas all ..... happy new year
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 8:53:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 6:00:42 PM, dadman wrote:
I have yet to discover an atheist willing to debate the scientific fact that all life derives from an intelligent source
You say fact. Provide evidence.

Ever heard of random occurrence? That's how life came to be. It just happened, no creator, no design. Simply all that our universe consists of and how it all reacts and affects each other.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 9:21:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 7:34:52 PM, dadman wrote:
your definitions imply that there is an actor, and go way beyond the demonstrable aspects of DNA .

My definition implies nothing ..
the definition it is what it is .. the real issue is ..
are you willing to follow where the evidence leads

what else falls into the parameter of code / information

a writer and a reader of specifically recognized symbols

.......... music . . . blue prints .. name some more

Ramshutu answered your question clearly, all you are doing is playing with words. If you are using the word "code" in the sense that there is an intelligent writer then no, he doesn't believe it. Saying that it is a code, is begging the question.

Every event has a final product whether it is natural or not. All we did was reverse engineer the final product of living things to find out what it's make up is. You can do the same thing with a rock. That doesn't mean that god created it, and if you believe it does then your argument is essentially that you know God made it because he made it. It's a silly argument not worth debating.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 12:44:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/20/2013 8:17:41 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I believe it does. If you disbelieve some proposition, x, then you must believe x is not true, or is less true than it's contradiction.

Why is this magically not the case with atheism?

Theists have the major burden of proof, agnostics have none, and yes, atheists have some burden of proof. Theists have to prove a god most likely exists. Atheists have to prove it is reasonable to believe in the non-existence of gods but they do not have to prove gods do not exist. If theists fail to prove God exists, or you refute their claims, you still have to provide justification for actually disbelieving in gods rather than just lacking belief.

I'm assuming we're defining atheists as those who believe gods do not exist, not as those who simply lack belief in gods.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)