I came across a solid perspective for atheism, recently, from my research. There does not seem to be an original source of this perspective, but it provides an example from law. I heard this example originally stated on The Atheist Experience which is a local and live internet video-cast from Austin, Texas(*). The example fits our modern process of logically evaluating a case of murder. This example should be prefaced, by defining theism and atheism. From the Greek and Latin prefixes, when the letter a is appended to the beginning of a word, it means without or not. Theism is defined as the belief in god. If theists claim to believe in god(s), then atheists would claim without belief in god(s). Moreover, atheists are not claiming there are no gods. Many atheists are open to the possibility there might be god(s), but find the evidence insufficient.
When there is a claim to a particular subject, the logical process is to evaluate the claim and the negation of the claim, not the opposite to the claim. In a court of law, when there is a case of murder, the jury makes a decision of sufficient evidence to the claim guilty or not guilty. This is not whether the person is guilty or innocent, correspondingly, atheists are only stating the negation of the claim and not that there is no god. The person may be guilty, however, if there is not sufficient evidence then claiming the person guilty is unfounded. Furthermore, atheists in the recent movement do not claim there is no god, only that there is not sufficient evidence for a god, and find it highly unlikely the more research and investigation into those particular claims.
There are some atheists who claim there is no god, but this is difficult to prove, and if anyone is to make a positive claim about the existence or non-existence of a god, then the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. When hearing this example for the basic understanding of the atheist perspective, I thought it was a wonderful example. It brings in the modern way we evaluate law. The problem with claims of god, is that they can be attached to religion. However, abstractly conceptualizing the idea of god helps to consider certain premises and arguments prudently.
What are your thoughts on the example above?