Is it ever justified to say "I'm not religious or spiritual, I'm an atheist."

Edit: u/chriswalker2001 said this in the comments section. "It's like I can't say "I'm really not into music" and people go "oh what's your favorite band?" And I say "no really, I'm not into music" and they go "no but what's your favorite band?" "I'm really not into music." "But what's your favorite band?" "I don't have one." "Revolver?" "I don't have a favorite band." "I'm not religious" "Oh what's your favorite band?" "I don't have one." "Do you love me?" "I don't have one! I'm not into music."<br><br>I'm sure we've all seen this in different contexts, where someone is so obtuse that they won't accept the fact that you don't have a favorite band, favorite food, favorite movie, favorite song, favorite this, favorite that, etc. For me, I'm not into music. I'm not into movies. And I'm not into spirituality. Atheism is my lack of spirituality. <br><br>It seems like the burden of proof is on the person who is not explaining why they believe in something, but rather on the person who IS explaining why they believe in something. The burden of proof is on theists to prove why it is rational to believe in their gods. The burden of proof is on spiritual people to prove why it is rational to believe in their spiritual systems. I don't have a spiritual system. I don't have a system of beliefs. The truth is, nobody really knows what's going on, or how the human experience even works. I operate on evidence, empiricism, and proof. I believe in whatever is the most true thing, and am willing to change my mind whenever given new information. I don't have a belief system. Belief is the absence of evidence. I strive to operate based on evidence, facts, and reality, making decisions based on the step-by-step elimination of improbable possibilities. I acknowledge the mystery of the universe and respect it, but I don't pretend I know what's going on, nor do I have any faith in anything. I operate based on facts, and my best guess. Not on faith.<br><br>William Burroughs once said, "Faith is the substance of space. And it's in a state of collapse." Faith is like a table. It props up the sky. It's the mystical system, the mystical experience, the divine experience. It's what holds everything up. But what if you can't even see the table? What if you realize the sky is already holding itself up? What if you realize that the table was just an illusion to begin with?<br><br>I don't have the burden of proof to prove a lack of a spiritual system. There is no evidence I am hiding. If anything, the burden of proof is on the person with the spiritual system. If I had a spiritual system and believed in a higher power, going to church, practicing divination, practicing spirituality, etc. then the burden is on me to prove it, because those spiritual systems are not based on evidence. They are faith based, and mystical. They are not testable. They are not falsifiable. And they are not provable or disprovable. <br><br>The burden of proof is not on me. It is not on a lack of spirituality. Not on a lack of faith. Not on a lack of mysticism. Spiritual people are the ones with the burden of proof, and they can't even come close to meeting that burden of proof. So they just say "well that's how faith works." <br><br>I'm not into faith. I'm not into spirituality. I'm not into mysticism. I'm into evidence. I'm into facts. I'm into reality. So I'm not religious or spiritual. I'm an atheist. Atheism is my mystical system, because it's not faith based. It's evidence based. And the evidence is that humans don't really know what's going on, but evidence proves humans don't know what's going on.