is that the basis for reaching the athesit view start from exposure to a theist view .. therefore the conclusion reached , the atheism ,is based on looking at what the theist claims as the evidence for god and finding that evidence wanting . No evidence for the NON-existance is needed because they are never convince by the theist evdience in the first place . There is no absence to account for , you dont try to disprove something that has not been proven.
Very cogently stated. This is the essence of why I consider myself atheist. Humans have come up with a bewildering myriad of conceptions for god(s), spirits, djinni, etc
ad infinitum from the remotest times for which we have records. To date, none of these conceptions have anything remotely resembling evidentiary support. I would add further that many of these conceptions have
disconfirming evidence against them. Does that rule out totally the possibility of the existence of ALL conceptions? No, clearly not. However, the burden of proof, as you state, is on the theist/believer to produce evidence in favor. It isn't incumbent upon the "atheist" (however defined) to prove the negative when there has been no proof offered for the positive.
™ Version 4.2