system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If atheism is an active denial of God, then the burden of proof is on the atheist too, right?

Hello,

I know that outside of philosophical circles atheism is often defined as the lack of belief in God, but among professionals in philosophy it's defined as the belief that there is no God (active denial/rejection of God's existence).

The thing is, as soon as one says something like "I believe there is no God" (definition of atheism), they have the burden of proof on them to show *why* they believe there is no God. So, if atheism is really the view that God doesn't exist, then atheists have much explaining to do- much like a theist has to explain why they believe there is a God. The burden of proof is no longer just on the theist; it's on both, since both are making "extraordinary" claims (one is saying God exists and the other is saying God doesn't exist). Right?

I think the biggest problem for atheists here is to show why there can't be a God at all, period. I mean, sure, it might be easy to reject the classic monotheistic God (according to Christianity, Islam, etc.) due to various "problems" found in these religions and their concept of God (an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator God). However, when someone says there is no God at all (like the atheist), then it stretches out further than just the classical theistic God; it applies to *any* God out there (even a deistic one or any other one). How can an atheist confidently believe there isn't *any* God out there, period. Seems like an extraordinary claim.

For example, I certainly reject the concept of God according to the major world religions, because of things like the evidential problem of evil, the problem of hell, etc. However, there's always a possibility that there is a deistic type of God out there who just doesn't give a shit about us and may not be omnibenevolent. Or, perhaps there's just some other God out there, so how can I reject *all* possible creator Gods. It doesn't seem reasonable to make such a huge claim.
gpt
> Right?

Whenever someone advances a claim that we're meant to accept, we have reasonable grounds to inquire as to why we should accept it.

> How can an atheist confidently believe there isn't any God out there, period.

Presumably on the basis of the arguments against the possibility of God existing, like arguments against the coherency of the notion of God; arguments against the possibility of God existing given the way the world is, like the problem of evil; and/or arguments for the view that we have no reason to believe that God exists.

> However, there's always a possibility that there is a deistic type of God out there who just doesn't give a shit about us and may not be omnibenevolent. 

The question isn't whether it's *possible* that a god exists, the question is whether it's *actual* that a god exists. So unless you can support the latter claim, this is a red herring which does nothing to undermine our confidence in atheism.