Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Magilla]

I don't really like how the"burden of proof thing" is used by most people. I mean some just throw it out and expect the other part to do all the talking.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist  and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool  used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".


As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.

If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".

If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.

Agreed, Grandizer. To be a theist a person has to learn some concepts - like what is a god? what's the reason for believing in such a thing? Next, to be a theist, the person has to acknowledge the god-concept in mind, and accept it as true. If you don't buy into the part where you accept the reasons for belief, then you are an atheist. You do not have to say that such a thing as the god does not actually exist, you only have to say that you don't accept the reasoning and arguments so far. If there has to be a burden of proof, it is the one who makes the positive claim, who has it, (the burden).

An extension of this is that if the non-believer has some burden of proof, then it would mean that we all have to accept as true, any concept that we could not show to be false. Can I show it to be false that there is not a race of green and purple striped turd-shaped beings called Plattes, living on the planet Utok, which is beyond the reach of any of our telescopes? If the burden of proof lies with me, then I must accept as true, that there is such a race of beings.

Surely, such a proposition is poppycock - I don't have to prove that Plattes do not exist, to take the position that the burden of proof has not been met by those who would tell me that they do, (if there were any Plattist believers here on earth).

If the atheist goes a step further, and says: "Nope - there are no gods, no place", and if the atheist wants to be rational and convince others of that as truth, then that class of atheist has a burden of proof.

One last thing. If the theist goes so far as to define their god-concept, and give it properties which manifest in the natural world, then it is possible to disprove the truth of the existence of that god. Such a god can be disproved, if it is internally inconsistent, conflicts with known evidence, is logically impossible etc.