https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism (2) https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist And even if an atheist holds the position that a god does not exist, based on our current evidence, this is the default null hypothesis, and this rejection of the claim that a god does exist does not require a proof. The assertion that a god exists requires proof. The author's insistence that atheists who simply default to the null hypothesis in the question of whether a god exists need to provide evidence is the one violating the scientific method. If someone tells the author that BBQ pork sandwiches cure cancer does he just accept it as true until someone proves that they don't cure cancer?