Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
deny = state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of
If atheism inherently places the onus on the believer as you say, then isn't the atheist always expressing implicit or explicit denial of god's existence by demanding evidence? "I don't believe god exists, so prove me wrong" condoned by semantic interpretation?
Furthermore it feels presumptuous to place the onus on believers when in fact albeit unlikely, they may be correct. This isn't criminal law where only one prosecutorial side deserves the burden.
In sum, to me it seems that admitting human limitations, I'd rather call myself agnostic than atheist.
Thanks for the input 
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read