Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

 Thesis: Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view.

When I talk to atheists they usually define their position with four statements - your interactions may be different.

The statements are:

1) I have a disbelief [or no belief] in god[s];

2) There is no evidence for any god[s]

3) I make no claims and thus have no burden of proof

4) Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; theism is an extraordinary claim thus the theists must provide extraordinary evidence.

Statement 1 - I have a disbelief [or no belief] in god[s]

This tells us nothing about reality, it doesn't give any reasons why any critical thinking person should accept it as true; it is unfalsifiable. But it's not meant to be an argument; it is just their opinion, their declaration. Fair enough but still it's not a reasoned statement in and of itself.

Statement 2 - There is no evidence for any god[s]

Ah, now we have a claim [I know, I know. statement 3, but just bear with me] This is apparently their reasons concluding statement 1 is true.

But when usually pressed, there is nothing forthcoming in any substantive way that would move a critical thinking person to conclude that statement 2 is true [They usually cite statement 3]. I had a conversation with an atheist recently and when asked about this they essentially said that, I could list the arguments for God, but I might miss a few; but they've all been refuted

But this is another claim. However, the argument or evidence for this is, well let's just say this is where the articulation and defense of atheism usually ends, in my experience.

So, statement 2 doesn't provide any foundation for statement 1

Statement 3 - I make no claims and thus have no burden of proof

Well, the atheist just made two claims [sometimes they only make one] thus this is an internal contradiction in atheism. If a two or more propositions or statements are made and that both cannot possibly be true then it's a logically fallacious statement

And yes, you can prove a negative argues famed atheist Richard Carrier.

So atheists DO have a burden of proof and have failed to meet it.

Statement 4 - Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; theism is an extraordinary claim, thus the theists must provide extraordinary evidence.

This is a strange statement. If one doesn't know what the nature of reality is, then how can one say what is an extraordinary claim? By what measuring stick are they using to determine what is extraordinary?

Conclusion - So, upon examination atheism [as outlined in the 4 statements above] is a non-reasoned position/view because:

1) it doesn't tell us what the nature of reality is [it doesn't even attempt to] let alone make a reasoned argument for it. If one doesn't have an idea of what the nature of reality is and why they think it's correct then on what basis can they make any epistemological claims - relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

2) Claims that there is no evidence for God, yet fail to support this claim.

3) Sometimes it claim that all arguments for God have been refuted, but fail to support this claim as well.

4) Claims that they don't make claims, when they clearly do - i.e. their view is thus internally inconsistent, i.e. logically fallacious.

5) Claims that theist must provide "extraordinary evidence" but cannot [or do not] state what the nature of reality is [see above], and how they've determined it. Thus, they have no reasonable basis to say that theists must provide "extraordinary evidence".