I'm not really sure that your reply adds anything to what you first said.
You seem to be saying that it takes as much faith for someone to say there is no god as it does for someone to say there is or that the burden of proof is the same for someone who proclaims an absence of god/gods equal to the burden of proof for someone who proclaims that there is a god/gods.
No, I didn't say anything about the quantity of faith involved, I made a statement about the quantity of proof involved. Which is 'zero' in both cases by the way.
What I said in my previous post still stands because very few atheists claim absolute certainty, they just say that god/gods are on the same level as pink unicorns and no one asks for proof if you say they don't exist. Ditto for god/gods.....
Which is why I said it's an effective argument against
religions... not against god(s)
I don't believe that god exists because there is no evidence for him/her and considering that over the centuries believers have put immense time and energy into proving their imaginary friends existence the fact that they have failed miserably is bloody good evidence to the contrary.
And here you're tying your argument to existing religions... essentially allowing them to determine what 'god is' for you. What you're not doing is taking into account that god may exist in a way entirely outside of what those believers thought about their imaginary friends. It may not fit any definition we as a human race have yet come up with. In effect, by dismissing it, you're claiming to know the defining boundaries of something you
cannot know.
Anyway the burden of proof is very much on the person who claims something exists not on the person who claims the absence of something..
Just as the burden of proof is very much on the person who claims that nothing exists, and not on the person who claims simply not to know...