Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[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.