Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

A few atheists here disagree about this, so I'll put my reasoning down here

Vinny!

That's what they call me, yes.

Welcome

Thanks!

back!

Oh, are we calling out random body parts now? Shoulder!

But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.

In

In what?

the

Just the?

ac

?

ad

??

emic

???

This makes no sense whatsoever!

Could it be that going into ever-smaller fisking units we risk losing sight of the context and broader point being made in return for meaningless sentence by sentence sparring?

Let's keep this a conversation, not a fisking orgy.

You're defending the notion of "burden of proof" in academia here. It would be good, since you do, to be able to shoulder said burden of proof. Provide some evidence of this burden of proof's consideration in various academic fields, show us how they work, and whether it is appropriately applied in context of discussions of atheism.

You've made further positive claims as well. Once you shoulder this burden, you can move on to your other positive claims. Together, you and me, we'll make sure you shoulder every burden of proof attached to every positive claim you've made in your post, even if it takes all night.

Or, you know, you can stop and reconsider the strength of your reliance on the "burden of proof".

But as far as definitions, there are good ones and there are bad ones. Useful ones and non-useful ones. Like I said earlier, defining atheism as a "lack of belief" stops making it an intellectually viable position. Having the property "lack of belief" would be akin to having "lack of bowel control".

It's simply a description of your mental/physical state and says nothing about whether your position is rational. Paul Holbach should have thought of that with his definition. If he called children atheists, he would also have to call rocks and trees atheists.

That would really pad the numbers on the census.

But what's interesting is that despite your fisking attempt, you're not really disagreeing with my argument.

All you've managed to say in response to (a) is "Well, some atheists are herp derp."

Okay, fair enough. There are two types of atheists. (a1) Idiots and (a2) regular atheists.

Idiot atheists thus bear no burden of proof, you seem to argue. They seem to bear no burden of anything.

Regular atheists, on the other hand are both atheists AND "accept the principles of critical thought and logic". But this groups would still bear the burden of proof.

After all, their logic and critical thinking entails a positive claim, and thus a "burden of proof".

So, despite your protestations, I think you agree with me. Our only difference is that I think all atheists bear the burden of proof of (a), while you think only smart atheists do. The idiots, you think can just prance about in the meadows picking daisies.

You also misattribute my (sometimes)- see what fisking does? That sometimes was attached to ©, not (b). I assume then that you agree with (b).

So I don't see what the problem is here. You're hating on Vinny, but you're not disagreeing with me!

I think that's an encouraging report for your reasoning skills, honestly.

You do claim, however that atheists can simply "avoid affirming it" as if affirming entails "declaring it out loud". But it doesn't.

All you have to do is believe something to affirm it. And if you believe atheism is rational, if you believe theism has a burden of proof, if you believe the burden of proof isn't met, then your beliefs entail a burden of proof.

Fisk me back, tell me where I went wrong!

---

But Vinny, theists have the burden of proof, and never carried it.

Instead, they roll the boulder, flattening each other.

Atheists look at the boulder, say "fuck that", and go get a crane to legitimately see if they can pick up the boulder.

There's plenty of theists (trying) to carry the burden of proof, with varying degrees of success, and at the highest level of philosophical discourse.

To simply claim there are none is, I find
-grossly ignorant
-grossly deceptive
-or grossly misunderstood about what the burden of proof entails.

I mean, just because you claim "Theistic argument A is rubbish" doesn't mean it actually is, any more than claiming "Evolution never happened" means evolution never really happened.

I mean, Alvin P, probably one of the greatest Philosophers of Religion alive (and a mentor to my favorite young atheist philosopher Bradley Monton) discussed two dozen, count it again, two dozen theistic arguments in one lecture.

Predictably, you would claim "But they're all crap arguments", much like someone would say "Dude your evidence for a round earth is all crap. Flat-eartherism 4 LYFE!"

But deep down, I hope you won't. I hope you will take the time to refute them one by one. Or, at least recognize that they are worth addressing instead of dismissing out of ignorance.

That's something theists do. Not us.