Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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?

I'd disagree, in that one can keep spooling that out again and again: "The positive claim "the positive claim 'the burden of proof is unmet; entails a burden of proof to prove that statement true" entails a similar burden of proof to prove that statement true." and so on, and so on. At what point do we stop retracting the burden of proof one step at a time, and start shouldering it?

But there's also this dichotomy of existential claims versus subjective ones. The claim of god is an existential claim with a definite yes or no answer, with a definite burden of proof. Meanwhile, "the burden of proof is unmet," is, as we've established, at least a little bit subjective in terms of what we'd accept as evidence for it. Obviously christians believe the burden has been met, atheists don't, but the criteria one would use for that is fuzzy. I think there's an implicit tag to that: "The burden of proof is unmet, from my point of view."

And from there, we encounter the question of what standards are sufficient to label that burden met or unmet.

Whichever way we take the discussion, I personally don't mind, because I don't buy the "burden of proof" nonsense anyway. I mean, I know it's valid in some circumstances, but certainly not in this one. The "endless spool" you're referring to (I like how you worded it) is a problem that is raised in epistemology as well- we simply cannot have an infinite regress of these burdens going into the past (or the future), so this view is unfeasible.

Although I imagine one might say the burden of proof has been met by demonstrating it's rationality. Ie "the positive claim 'the burden of proof is unmet'" entails a burden of proof, which is met by showing that it is logical. To put it into a syllogism:

P1) All positive claims entail a burden of proof
P2) The claim that "The burden of proof is unmet" is a positive claim
C Therefore, "the burden of proof is unmet" entails a burden of proof.

If we want to turn this into a second order burden of proof argument, we just replace P2.
P1) All positive claims entail a burden of proof
P2) The claim that "The positive claim that 'The burden of proof is unmet' entails a burden of proof" is a positive claim
C Therefore, "The positive claim that 'The burden of proof is unmet' entails a burden of proof" entails a burden of proof.

If the soundness of the argument entails a successful discharge of the burden of proof, we have found a way to move forward on the claim and the meta-claim.

But what of the claim that the burden of proof is unmet? You point out that it is a bit subjective. And I think I can concede that much. And you would be right then in saying that any proper statement of a burden of proof would look like

"The burden of proof is unmet, from my point of view."

But this makes all the people who have been using this claim look exceedingly silly.

In effect, what they are saying is
1) The burden is unmet in my subjective view,
2) You need to meet it,
3) I don't know what criteria needs to be met in order for this burden of proof to be discharged
4) You cannot meet this invisible, unexplained criteria.
5) Therefore, atheism.

I'm sure you can see how stupid this makes the typical atheist burden of proof position look. In fact, I would say the situation is even worse, because I don't think most atheists aren't even aware of the existence of a minimum criteria. They've learned the words burden of proof, but not fully understood the concept.

To solve this involves a series of positive claim on the part of the intelligent atheist. Namely

1) The burden of proof is unmet.
2) There exists a criteria or threshold for this burden of proof and I acknowledge it's existence contingent on the existence of a burden of proof.
3) This criteria is neither too high nor too low (too skeptical or too credulous), but is in fact appropriate to demonstrate or fail to demonstrate the existence of a deity.

All these three claims, however, entail a burden of proof on the part of the atheist.

Is my reasoning making sense here? Let me know.

---

That's an interesting case of reading comprehension deficiency you have there.

Vinny, this is yet another accusation by you that yet someone else has reading comprehension issues with your posts.

What is more likely?

A)Everyone here has poor reading comprehension.
B)You aren't doing a very good job at explaining your thoughts.

I think that might be a false dichotomy, Rahul.

Rather, I think what's happening is that people here are by nature a bit more emotionally engaged than others. Instead of critical analysis of the idea, we have emotional responses expressing oneself.

And by nature, perhaps we don't read a complete post, but scan through it quickly and assume we know what the person is saying before reading and thinking about what was read. I know I do it sometimes.

After all, can you explain how a grown man, presumably at minimum a high school graduate reads

"I think it serves as significant evidence."

as

"Apparently you think that one should accept as true any argument which no one has been able to refute even if one does not understand it himself."

I don't want to assume the person is an idiot. That is needlessly uncharitable. Rather, I just think it's an intelligent person that uses poor reading practices.