Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Captain Colostomy]

I'm doing that and watching The Avengers with the Mrs right now. Multitasking FTW.

Fuck me, I get hung up on just 'task'. I drew a circle with salt on the floor to aid my focus in responding with this. I probably should be in the center of it though. Damn.

[c172]

I'm listening to NPR. I need a soothing voice whilst I plow through this thread.

[Esquilax]

Actually, the discussion is more like this:

Scientist A: "I have discovered the newest element Blargoxium!"
Scientist B: "You have provided insufficient proof of your discovery! I do not believe Blargoxium exists!"
Scientist A: "What is sufficient proof?"
Scientist B: "No idea! Whatever proof you bring, is insufficient!"

Well, if that's the way you want to look at it, then fine. I can't speak for everyone else, but my barrier of entry for god-belief is no higher than it is for any other existential claim; if you can show it to me, I'll acknowledge it's there. And you should ask yourself why, instead of just doing that, theists resort to cheap philosophical tricks or defining their god into existence by talking around the fact that they don't have the kind of evidence that they would have for any other thing that exists.

Besides, if we really were just avid contrarians who would never accept any evidence you had, wouldn't it be easy for you to just ruin our credibility completely? If your evidence was as airtight and compelling as you seem to think it is, you could make atheism look as ridiculous as geocentrism or a flat earth, just by presenting it. You could make all other religions look like that, and you need to consider why it is that this isn't so.

But as it stands, I'm completely tired of you guys, lacking the wherewithal to properly defend your position, resorting to the cheap tricks of reinterpreting the motivations of your detractors, smearing the personalities of your opposition rather than just proving your position correct, or trying to shift the burden of proof. As your initial argument posits, we'd all have a burden of proof, identical to the one you claim atheism has... but in the end all you've really done is mislabeled the idea of supporting your position as a burden of proof.

Not having been presented sufficient evidence of the existence of god is the reason I think atheism is more rational. Bam. Your burden of proof has been met. That's what you get for formulating a subjective, qualitative burden of proof for atheism, while retaining the existential and therefore objective burden for your own claims. Congratulations; when will you be shouldering your burden?

[max-greece]

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.

In a word - no.

The only position that an atheist might be called upon to justify is "a) The claim that the burden of proof for the existence of God has not been met."

This can be discussed, as in, why the "proofs" that have been offered are not compelling rather than having to create an argument as to why God doesn't exist.

This applies equally to any claim be that God, Bigfoot, the Locke Ness Monster, fairies, unicorns, griffins etc.

Its worth noting that in some cases, where the proof is improved upon, the result is positive. In other words the doubted claim proves to be true. Examples include the Mountain Gorilla and the Duck Billed Platypus.

So all you have to do is come back with more compelling proof. The good news is that your God is omniscient so he will know exactly what is required.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Actually, the discussion is more like this:

Scientist A: "I have discovered the newest element Blargoxium!"
Scientist B: "You have provided insufficient proof of your discovery! I do not believe Blargoxium exists!"
Scientist A: "What is sufficient proof?"
Scientist B: "No idea! Whatever proof you bring, is insufficient!"

Well, if that's the way you want to look at it, then fine. I can't speak for everyone else, but my barrier of entry for god-belief is no higher than it is for any other existential claim; if you can show it to me, I'll acknowledge it's there. And you should ask yourself why, instead of just doing that, theists resort to cheap philosophical tricks or defining their god into existence by talking around the fact that they don't have the kind of evidence that they would have for any other thing that exists.

Besides, if we really were just avid contrarians who would never accept any evidence you had, wouldn't it be easy for you to just ruin our credibility completely? If your evidence was as airtight and compelling as you seem to think it is, you could make atheism look as ridiculous as geocentrism or a flat earth, just by presenting it. You could make all other religions look like that, and you need to consider why it is that this isn't so.

But as it stands, I'm completely tired of you guys, lacking the wherewithal to properly defend your position, resorting to the cheap tricks of reinterpreting the motivations of your detractors, smearing the personalities of your opposition rather than just proving your position correct, or trying to shift the burden of proof. As your initial argument posits, we'd all have a burden of proof, identical to the one you claim atheism has... but in the end all you've really done is mislabeled the idea of supporting your position as a burden of proof.

Not having been presented sufficient evidence of the existence of god is the reason I think atheism is more rational. Bam. Your burden of proof has been met. That's what you get for formulating a subjective, qualitative burden of proof for atheism, while retaining the existential and therefore objective burden for your own claims. Congratulations; when will you be shouldering your burden?

Thanks for making a thoughtful and substantial post. Compared to yours, there was one person here who thought I was making a point about the peer reviewed process with my "discussion"! Am I too subtle with these things or something? But I think you make a valid point about cheap philosophical tricks or reifying definitions. Everybody needs to stop doing those, especially theists.

Now I'm not here to say the arguments and evidence in support of theism is airtight and compelling. My familiarity with them leads me to conclude that they are at the very least, not weak. However, I think to a lot of people the issue is not of evidence, it's of an unwillingness or disinterest in rationality. Rather there are some extra-rational factors going on. To test this, you need to ask the following:

"If you found evidence that, for instance, Islam was true, would you immediately bow the knee to Allah, accept Mohammed as the prophet, and submit to the Islamic rules and regulations?"

Most people would say "Hello no!" And this is DESPITE being convinced (hypothetically) that Islam (or whatever) were true.

So obviously it's more than merely being rational. There's something emotional there. And I think it's fair to admit as much given one's own answer to this question.

Now given your final response, it's good that you've faced up to the whole burden of proof thing. But I think it begs the question I asked Rahul: What constitutes "sufficient evidence"? Is it a subjective measure or objective? How do you know the standard and expected nature of evidence is appropriate? Is someone being rational when they expect scientific evidence for a historical event or scientific evidence for a mathematical claim? Any thoughtful atheist relishes these questions and seeks out a coherent epistemological theory on which these evidences (and lack thereof) can hang.

[Bad Writer]

You speak of this evidence that seemed to convince you, but why do you hesitate to present it to us?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

You speak of this evidence that seemed to convince you, but why do you hesitate to present it to us?

Who said it convinced me? Did you even read that post?

How are you going to convince me to present anything if you can't even understand what I'm saying?

If you had actually read what I'm saying and wanted to see the "evidence" I was referring to, you would have asked me why I thought the evidence for theism of some sort was "not weak", not that it convinced me.

You have to be serious if you have these discussions with me.

[Bad Writer]

You speak of this evidence that seemed to convince you, but why do you hesitate to present it to us?

Who said it convinced me? Did you even read that post?

How are you going to convince me to present anything if you can't even understand what I'm saying?

If you had actually read what I'm saying and wanted to see the "evidence" I was referring to, you would have asked me why I thought the evidence for theism of some sort was "not weak", not that it convinced me.

You have to be serious if you have these discussions with me.

You. Are. A. Boob.

What are you doing here if you're not going to present anything of substance? If you're not convinced of anything, then what are you trying to convince us of? I tried, but you didn't play nice. You can now suck the collective dick of this forum, for that's obviously all you're going to be good for around here. Who knows? Piss off the right people, and you'll be gone before I can call you a "boob" again.

[Captain Colostomy]

You have to be serious if you have these discussions with me.

So sayeth Prof. Puon, lord and administrator of Atheist Forums dot org.

[Fidel_Castronaut]