Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Mister Agenda]

A few atheists here disagree about this, so I'll put my reasoning down here

Vinny! Welcome back!

But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.

In the academic literature, everyone knows where the burden of proof lies.

-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.

If you'd rather call it the 'burden of reason and evidence', that's fine with me.

-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

Well, you can, but it's not reasonable to expect people to believe you if the assertion is far-fetched and there's no ready explanation for how you would know if it's true.

This entire argument depends on one axiomatic assumption:
-Positive claims carry a burden of proof.

Or you could put it as: when you claim something exists, you should be able to provide evidence and reason to believe it actually does if you want other people to believe you.

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 why everyone thinks you're intellectually dishonest. There are a variety of definitions of atheist, there's no 'official' standard defintion, and the one that pretty much all atheists agree is accurate is 'lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods', which you don't use because it doesn't suit your agenda.

This is a negation of theism which is "The affirmation or belief in of the existence of God".

Atheism isn't the negation of theism. It's not being a theist. It's not affirming or believing in the existence of God.

Somewhere along the line, clever atheists discovered atheism was untenable with that definition.

Paul Holbach observed in the late 1700s that 'All children are atheists, they have no idea of God'. In 1876, Charles Bradlaugh opined that 'Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God.' In 1902, G.W. Foote wrote 'Refer me to one Atheist who denies the existence of God....Etymologically, as well as philosophically, an ATheist is one without God. That is all the 'A' before 'Theist' really means.'

They couldn't prove or disprove squat about God. But they wanted to keep calling themselves atheists. So they redefined the word.

Recognition of nominal versus explicit atheism and negative versus positive atheism is nothing new. The atheists who are modest in their claims about God tend to be modest in their other claims as well. Note that the same person can be and often is a positive/gnostic atheist toward some God-concepts and a negative/agnostic atheist toward others. If you propose a concept of God that is self-contradictory or whose supposed deeds are contrary to the available evidence, I will by happy to state categorically that it doesn't really exist. My reticence is definitely only toward the more modest versions of God that avoid theodical problems and don't have a history that can be verifed.

New definition: "lack of belief in God".

You have a funny definition of 'new'. See above.

This is clever. It effectively allows the atheist (or so they think) to escape any burden of proof.

The diabolically clever atheist, not claiming to know what can't be known! The theists will never hit upon the intricate counter of not pretending that they know either! Bwahahaha!

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.

The theist only has a burden if they assert God exists. That invites the counter: How do you know that? Since it is unknowable, the claim is a non-starter. If they made a more modest claim, like God could exist, they'd be saying something that invites further discussion. We don't expect them to be certain, we don't consider certainty any kind of virtue unless it's strongly supported.

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?

This should be good.

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.

Not entailed by atheism. Entailed by generally accepted principles of critical thought and logic. It would be nice if those things were synonymous with atheism, but they're not. Many atheists are only passingly acquainted with critical thinking and may believe in things like astrology, ghosts, and reincarnation. The only thing implicit to atheism is not believing in any gods.

b) The claim that atheism is a more rational position than theism.
(sometimes)

If it's only sometimes, it's not implicit to atheism, now is it? What some atheists say isn't atheism.

c) The claim that theism is irrational.

What some atheists say isn't atheism.

You cannot be an atheist without affirming (a) and (b), and sometimes ©.

You don't have to affirm anything to be an atheist. Many atheists never even tell anyone they're an atheist.

So if you are an atheist, you must affirm (a) and (b), and since they are positive beliefs, they entail a burden of proof.

Except, we don't have to affirm them. Now if someone DOES affirm them, THEN they have assumed a burden of proof. It's quite reasonable to call someone to support those claims. It's just not reasonable to call out someone who hasn't just because they're an atheist.

Signing off,

Vinny G.