Not believing does carry a burdon also though, because completely disproving an omnicient god is impossible. Not only so, but you first have to define what that god is first.

@ your "But since I'm not an atheist, I don't truly understand how atheism is really like morally."

Atheism has no morals, nor does religion. Morals derives from the need for human cooperation and organization in order to survive.

necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

The burden of proof is on he who complains.

I would argue that the neutral status is agnosticism, the burden of proof is on those trying to prove either strong atheism (the absence of god(s)) or those trying to prove the existence of god(s).

Also you should note that to not believe in something is not the same as to believe that it is not.

Edit: @Saviour. Atheists morals are generally based on societies morals at the time. Just because they are not written down does not mean they do not exist. Also believe it or not but people don't need the threat/promise of afterlife to control them into leading a good life, most people will do it naturally.

But yeah, atheists are basically the same as most people morally, perhaps more progressive in their morals as they aren't written down in an ancient book. Thats probably why atheists are generally more ok with homosexuality, contraception, abortion and the suchlike.

"necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit"

Agreed. It's an integreal part of burden of proof.

Depending on the situation anyway.

To some religion actually does tend to frighten them into being better then they shoudl be.

Of course the real question is... is this a good thing?

Sociologically it appears that things that are changed via an effort to change peoples opinions lasts longer and works better then law based attempts at changing peoples opinions.  (both physical and heavenly.)

Abortion is one thing I can't condone.

^^^GamingChartzFTW

I acknowledged I don't know how atheism works, I only know what I see. As for judging people, we don't have a right to do that either. Who knows what their lives are like when they aren't in our presence. That same judgment is REALLY close to prejudice.

I can just judge someone immediately without knowing anything about them? Not cool bro.

I don't know; atheism just seems like if something isn't going your way, you can disregard it. There isn't any explanation for things. You can be whatever you want, because once again, I cannot judge you, but I know what I was raised with, and that is a God.

@Saviour. So you're saying that you cannot say that Hitler was a bad person? Or that Jesus was a good person? Afterall, both of those are judgements.

As for atheists not having explanations for things, a lot of us look long and hard for explanations. Usually explanations can be found through things like logic and the scientific method.

Do not shy away from all the excellent points I pointed out in response to your request "But since I'm not an atheist, I don't truly understand how atheism is really like morally. Someone here can explain that to me........"

Also. Every individual can judge others and is supposed to judge others. Both the people we know (based on what we know about them) and people we don't know (based on what they have done and according to the laws in our society).

We should never accept the religious dogma that one is not supposed to judge others. Keep in mind that so called 'prophets', priests and clergy came up with such rules in order to assert influence. Judging others is and will always remain a quintessential part of what it is to be an individual in society (consequence of actions).

By judgments, I mean people I meet in my own life. Hitler was one of the worst people in history,there is absolutely NO dispute about that. That is why I hope there is a God, because if there is, Hitler has a place to go to account for his atrocities, instead of dying like a coward and taking his own life, avoiding punishment.