Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Okay your shifting the burden of proof, which in academia would have your ass written off as a quack, and everyone in academia understands this.
However you want proof, here is a little on the Christian god.

Can you provide proof or evidence that atheism is accurate and correct?
This is often ask by youtube user shock of god, often in a very rude manner, well here is the answer in writing.

first off I'm not even going to bother with what is wrong with this phrasing and just say this. I think he is asking can you prove god does not exists.
Now since shock of god is a christian, then that means his claim of god is the bible and please note that since the bible is the claim, then it cannot be used as evidence that the bible is true or you get circular reasoning. So I present the following.
1. Since atheism is simply a rejection of religious claims, it has no burden of proof and if christians had proof they would not have to use logical fallacies such as shifting the burden of proof to make a argument.
2. The bible makes easily falsified claims, for example genesis 1:11 tells us that the vegetation of the earth was created before the sun. Now a earth without a sun would be something like -180 celsuis and permanently dark. Here I purpose a little experiment, take your mother's petunia or any potted plant and find a large deep freeze and put it in there, and then observe the results. There more disprovable claims then that too E.G plants after noahs flood.
3. Balant contradictions in the bible. For example in 1 john 4:12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
But in exodus 33:11
The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
And in Genesis 32:22-32 22
That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,[b] saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,[c] and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.
4. Balant design flaws in human anatomy E.G A jaw that is too small to fit all the teeth, the appendix, and the fact that we use one tube for eating and breathing. These are easily avoided design flaws that would have any engineer fired. If adam did have these flaws corrected before the fall then adam would have been a different species from us, probably even a different genus.
5. The positioning of the earth in a inner solar filled with asteriods that could easily wipe out life on earth, agian a glaring over that now sapient designer would make.

So you asked for evidence, there it is.

Here is the link to my original post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-20609.html
Or and here is a another post I made too on the subject
http://atheistforums.org/thread-20852.html

It looks very much like you are responding to my thread title, but ignoring what I actually said. I hope you take the time to look at what the post said, and then respond directly to it, because this current response seems to miss the point.

---

What constitutes the criteria of "worthy of worship" in your opinion?

That depends on the person. One of the more interesting things to note, for me, is that I've never met a religious person who feels particularly put out by the religious practices they ascribe to; that is, their god tends to agree with them on every issue, and if there's something in the holy book that would be inconvenient, then it's metaphorical, or taken out of context, but what it never is, is the inconvenient thing that it seems to be.

God belief is multiple choice, which if nothing else shows me that what makes a god worthy of being worshiped depends on the person; I wouldn't worship a homophobic god, some others would. And do, given the thousands of christian denominations out there. We all pick the god that fits the criteria we want to worship, or have been indoctrinated to, in some cases. But you rarely see a person who really loves shellfish not partaking because of his religion.

That's been one of the fuzziest concepts for me. And I for one am glad there's at least one atheist here who is capable of tackling the issue with some degree of seriousness.

The least any of us can do is listen. The "rational" part of being a rational skeptic is ensuring that you're at least exposed to arguments that might disagree with your preconceptions and give them due consideration, regardless of what your eventual conclusions about them might be.

For the record, I think most of the atheists here on the board have done that, at least to some degree. Labeling them all as unserious just puts you at risk of disregarding their positions the same as what you're accusing them of doing.

How do you feel about my conclusion that these issues, namely "What constitutes worthiness of worship?" and "Is the standard of sufficient evidence appropriate?" serve as issues that a rational atheist cannot ignore?

I agree, with two caveats: the first question feels like putting the cart before the horse, and the second is that coming to a different conclusion than yours doesn't mean those questions haven't been considered: whether the answers are right or wrong is a different issue.

How does that reasoning work, for, say quantum mechanics? "Prior to sixth grade, I saw no evidence for quantum mechanics. So quantum mechanics became rational in the sixth grade".

Actually, yes: how could a person be rationally justified in accepting an idea before they have been exposed to evidence for it? If one did that, they'd be in the position of accepting every claim out there.

Being correct and being rationally justified in coming to the correct conclusion are different things; if you don't have the latter, you're more lucky than correct.

Valid point about how religious people interpret "The Voice of God". Although I'm sure some religious people would disagree. I don't have a dog in that fight though.

As for your view on the rationality of quantum mechanics, I think you're confusing ontology with epistemology. Something can objectively be rational, even while people with varying levels of knowledge, expertise and evidence of it can perceive it to be irrational. This irrationality is not actual of the object, it is actual of the subject's perception of the object. So I don't think it makes sense to say "Quantum Mechanics became rational in the sixth grade", rather "Quantum Mechanics was always rational. But I was only convinced of it's rationality in the sixth grade."

Likewise, the rationality of the existence or non-existence of a deity can be perceived in much the same way. A theist or deist might say "God's existence has always been rational. I only found out that it was rational at moment t, when I saw evidence n."

As far as my reasoning, it simply goes from implicitly positive claims such as "The burden of proof hasn't been met" to "The positive claim "the burden of proof is unmet" entails a burden of proof to prove that statement true." Is that a disagreeable conclusion?