Are Atheists using Intellectually Dishonest Arguments?

[Mister Agenda]

I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.

That is exactly what it is.

If someone tells me that a god or a Bigfoot is real or baseball signed by Babe Ruth is in their pocket, and don't provide evidence sufficient to convince me that they are correct, I have zero obligation to provide evidence that they are wrong. I may, in the interest of discourse, share my thoughts on their position and what kind of evidence they ought to bring if they want to convince me, but my not being convinced by their mere assertions requires no argument from me, I have no burden. And honestly, I really don't have the burden even if I say there's no way you have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth in your pocket. It's still a response to your unevidenced assertion, and I am as entitled to dismiss your unevidenced assertion as you were to make it in the first place.

Now, if you show me a photo of a baseball signed by Babe Ruth, we have something to talk about. If I say that doesn't constitute evidence that you have it in your pocket, and for some reason you don't grasp why intuitively, we can talk about why you still haven't met your burden of proof. Or I could continue just not believing you and go on my merry way, provided you'll shut up about it, and be completely justified, because the onus is on you to prove your claim that you have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth in your pocket, not on me to disprove it. Which is probably for the best, because in this particular example I could disprove it by assaulting you and emptying your pockets: if no Babe Ruth baseball rolls out, you were just bullshitting; but now I've committed a felony.

Our legal system works on this basis. If you say I owe you a million bucks and take me to court to sue me for the money, I never have to say a word to prove I don't owe you the money. You have to show evidence that I do. Only if you show evidence that a judge or jury would find convincing do I have to worry about defending my claim that I don't owe you that money. The standard for a serious criminal charges is higher: I am presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You wouldn't want to live in a society where that isn't the case.

---

[The burden of proof is more obviously a good thing in a scientific context when there will always be a myriad of failed hypotheses before hitting upon the correct solution. Without testing each hypothesis we wouldn't make any progress.

Right, the null hypothesis must be overcome before taking a competing hypothesis seriously is rationally justified.