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. But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.
-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.
-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

This entire argument depends on one axiomatic assumption:
-Positive claims carry a burden of proof.

Now the standard definition of atheism is "The denial of the existence of God, or the belief in the non-existence of God". This is a negation of theism which is "The affirmation or belief in of the existence of God".

Somewhere along the line, clever atheists discovered atheism was untenable with that definition. They couldn't prove or disprove squat about God. But they wanted to keep calling themselves atheists. So they redefined the word.

New definition: "lack of belief in God". This is clever. It effectively allows the atheist (or so they think) to escape any burden of proof. The theist has a burden, the atheist doesn't, and all the atheist has to do is claim the burden has not been met. Easy intellectual cop-out.

But I don't believe any position can successfully avoid a burden of proof, and to show why, I'll use atheism as an example. While atheism is defined as "a lack of belief" and thus makes no positive claim, atheism itself does not escape positive claims. What positive claim?

There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by atheism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of God has not been met.
b) The claim that atheism is a more rational position than theism.
(sometimes) c) The claim that theism is irrational.

You cannot be an atheist without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

So if you are an atheist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Signing off,

Vinny G.

[Captain Colostomy]

Stay signed off.

[Strongbad]

Theist: "God exists"

Atheist: "I don't believe your claim"

Please explain how the atheist bears a burden of proof.

[Foxaèr]

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof.

Yes, they do, which is why plagiarism is a real concern. If you messed up with your first point, what hope is there that anything mentioned afterwards is worthy of merit?

[Rahul]

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny.

I suppose you don't believe in Mermaids. Therefore you must be making a positive claim by being an amermaidist according to your reasoning.

While amermaidism is defined as "a lack of belief in mermaids" and thus makes no positive claim, amermaidism itself does not escape positive claims. What positive claim?

There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by amermaidism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of Mermaids has not been met.
b) The claim that amermaidism is a more rational position than mermaidism.
(sometimes) c) The claim that mermaidism is irrational.

You cannot be an amermaidism without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

So if you are an amermaidist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Therefore I ask you to defend your positive claim that Mermaids do not exist.

I await your response.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny.

I suppose you don't believe in Mermaids. Therefore you must be making a positive claim by being an amermaidist according to your reasoning.

While amermaidism is defined as "a lack of belief in mermaids" and thus makes no positive claim, amermaidism itself does not escape positive claims. What positive claim?

There are several, and they are all implicitly entailed by amermaidism.
a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of Mermaids has not been met.
b) The claim that amermaidism is a more rational position than mermaidism.
(sometimes) c) The claim that mermaidism is irrational.

You cannot be an amermaidism without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

So if you are an amermaidist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Therefore I ask you to defend your positive claim that Mermaids do not exist.

I await your response.

Rahul

I didn't know there was such a thing as "amermaidism". Do you post on amermaidist forums too?

But yes, if you apply my argument to "amermaidism", the same would apply. Namely

(a) If I claim that the burden of proof for the existence of mermaids has not been met
then I need to explain what this burden is.

I personally don't make this claim. I avoid any claims of "burden of proof" in general. However others do make this claim, and those who do must answer it.

(b) If I claim to be an "amermaidist" I need to show how that is more rational than mermaidism.

This is trivially met with the response that no evidence has been presented to me for the existence of mermaids.

Now since I have answered yours, perhaps you could answer the same for your atheism.

I await your response.

[Rahul]

I don't believe in a god because I haven't found sufficient evidence to do so.

Call that whatever you want to. I just don't believe in the unproven idea of the god concept.

[Bad Writer]

Vinny: Whew! Dodged that bullet.

[Minimalist]

Stay signed fucked off.

Fixed that.

[Rahul]

(a) If I claim that the burden of proof for the existence of mermaids has not been met
then I need to explain what this burden is.

I personally don't make this claim. I avoid any claims of "burden of proof" in general. However others do make this claim, and those who do must answer it.

So do you believe in mermaids? Yes or no answer please.