Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

You looking for God in a test tube or something?

---

(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.

I don't believe mermaids actually exist, other than as fictional characters.

[Airyaman]

I laughed at the title of this thread as I listened to the forest fairies singing.

[Bad Writer]

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.

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

You looking for God in a test tube or something?

---

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

I don't believe mermaids actually exist, other than as fictional characters.

Let's start with whatever evidence convinced you that there is a god. That's the evidence that will be examined by those you are trying to convince.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

You looking for God in a test tube or something?

---

I don't believe mermaids actually exist, other than as fictional characters.

Let's start with whatever evidence convinced you that there is a god. That's the evidence that will be examined by those you are trying to convince.

No, let's not.

[Rahul]

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

If God came down to Earth and cured cancer or something and then gave us a pep talk I would believe a god exists. Something like that.

I don't believe mermaids actually exist, other than as fictional characters.

So according to your reasoning you have the burden of proof to support your disbelief.

[Bad Writer]

Let's start with whatever evidence convinced you that there is a god. That's the evidence that will be examined by those you are trying to convince.

No, let's not.

Are you afraid it won't stand up to scrutiny? If you know your evidence is too weak to present, then why have you decided to be a believer?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

If God came down to Earth and cured cancer or something and then gave us a pep talk I would believe a god exists. Something like that.

I don't believe mermaids actually exist, other than as fictional characters.

So according to your reasoning you have the burden of proof to support your disbelief.

I noticed in the other thread you were confused about my position on BoP. If you read my starting post, you will see that I simply take a BoP to mean I can't just make unsupported claims. Claiming I don't believe in mermaids entails my disbelief in the existence of mermaids thus must be supported by reason and evidence.

That means, that if I don't believe in the existence of mermaids, it must be a rational belief. If I claim there is a lack of evidence, then that claim must be rational as well. I know I'm not being very clear with my language here, so if you have any questions, go ahead and ask.

You also gave a criteria for sufficient evidence:

"If God came down to Earth and cured cancer or something and then gave us a pep talk I would believe a god exists. Something like that."

Is that the minimally sufficient evidence? What say God came down to earth and didn't cure cancer but decided instead to perform some other miracle, like cure everybody of the common cold? That would still be sufficient, right?

But would it be minimally sufficient? I assume by your belief in burden of proof, your claim is God hasn't met the minimal burden of proof.

[Rahul]

I noticed in the other thread you were confused about my position on BoP. If you read my starting post, you will see that I simply take a BoP to mean I can't just make unsupported claims. Claiming I don't believe in mermaids entails my disbelief in the existence of mermaids thus must be supported by reason and evidence.

That means, that if I don't believe in the existence of mermaids, it must be a rational belief. If I claim there is a lack of evidence, then that claim must be rational as well. I know I'm not being very clear with my language here, so if you have any questions, go ahead and ask.

Ah, I see where you are going wrong. Atheists don't make the claim that evidence for god does not exist. At least they shouldn't be. Atheists make the claim that no one has provided them any evidence for god.

I'm claiming that no one has shown me the evidence. Now to review every interaction I've ever had with anyone for my entire life where I may have been presented with evidence is unreasonable.

So therefore, the only rational thing to do, is for a believer to show me the evidence. And then I'll be a believer too.

It should be easy right?

But none of them have been able to do it.

Is that the minimally sufficient evidence? What say God came down to earth and didn't cure cancer but decided instead to perform some other miracle, like cure everybody of the common cold? That would still be sufficient, right?

But would it be minimally sufficient? I assume by your belief in burden of proof, your claim is God hasn't met the minimal burden of proof.

Ok, well let's really break this down. First of all, we have to agree on the definition of what would constitute a god.

Certainly an advanced interstellar alien visiting Earth and curing a disease would not make it god.

So what exactly is a god? Let's be clear on that before we continue.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I noticed in the other thread you were confused about my position on BoP. If you read my starting post, you will see that I simply take a BoP to mean I can't just make unsupported claims. Claiming I don't believe in mermaids entails my disbelief in the existence of mermaids thus must be supported by reason and evidence.

That means, that if I don't believe in the existence of mermaids, it must be a rational belief. If I claim there is a lack of evidence, then that claim must be rational as well. I know I'm not being very clear with my language here, so if you have any questions, go ahead and ask.

Ah, I see where you are going wrong. Atheists don't make the claim that evidence for god does not exist. At least they shouldn't be. Atheists make the claim that no one has provided them any evidence for god.

I'm claiming that no one has shown me the evidence. Now to review every interaction I've ever had with anyone for my entire life where I may have been presented with evidence is unreasonable.

So therefore, the only rational thing to do, is for a believer to show me the evidence. And then I'll be a believer too.

It should be easy right?

But none of them have been able to do it.

Is that the minimally sufficient evidence? What say God came down to earth and didn't cure cancer but decided instead to perform some other miracle, like cure everybody of the common cold? That would still be sufficient, right?

But would it be minimally sufficient? I assume by your belief in burden of proof, your claim is God hasn't met the minimal burden of proof.

Ok, well let's really break this down. First of all, we have to agree on the definition of what would constitute a god.

Certainly an advanced interstellar alien visiting Earth and curing a disease would not make it god.

So what exactly is a god? Let's be clear on that before we continue.

I suspect you of being a poe. You sound far too reasonable for the status quo around here!

I personally wouldn't say atheists can say that they have not been provided evidence because this suggests no evidence has been provided. Rather they may say they haven't been provided sufficient evidence, which presumes evidence that may be too weak to warrant belief on it's own, but cumulatively with other evidences might make for an interesting case.

You're right about the conception of God, too. I like the philosophical concept of God, as discussed in Philosophy of Religion. Minimally featured. Omniscient, omnipotent, maybe omnibenevolent. Certainly non-physical. Are you familiar with philosophy?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

proving omniscience requires that a 2nd person is omniscient.

omnipotence: can god make a rock so heavy even god can't move it?

omnibenevolent can't be claimed if there is suffering and god is said to be omnipotent. Unless you redefine benevolence.

Nonphysical: no proof for us physical beings then?

---

For a believer to claim that god exists then certainly they bear the burden of proof, none of which has been submitted and deemed sufficient to prove any of the omnis.