Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Cheerful Charlie]

---

A few atheists here disagree about this, so I'll put my reasoning down here. But first some points:

-In the academic literature nobody moans about burden of proof. This is pretty much an internet thing.
-Proofs only exist in mathematics and alcohol. In the context of theism and atheism, we go by reason and evidence.
-Nevertheless, this is a burden of proof argument, so far as "burden of proof" means "You can't just make baseless assertions".

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

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

Somewhere along the line, clever atheists discovered atheism was untenable with that definition. They couldn't prove or disprove squat about God. But they wanted to keep calling themselves atheists. So they redefined the word.

New definition: "lack of belief in God". This is clever. It effectively allows the atheist (or so they think) to escape any burden of proof. 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.

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?

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

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

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

Signing off,

Vinny G.

---

In academia, its usually understood where the burden lies with. You think there is a god One god, not many gods, not many not quite god-like things, et al. Burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate your case.

Theists make claims about God's attributes. Strong atheists take those claims, and demonstrate logically, these claims create logical contradictions that logically prove your God does not exist. Logical disproofs, In the technical sense of proof as a logical deduction.

2300 years ago, Plato essential invented natural theology, proving God exists, aimed explicitly at Atheists. 2300 years later theologians and professors of philosophy of religion admit natural theology, proving God exists is a failure. No good conclusive evidence can be shown for that.

I think nature is telling us something. It's a clue! Atheists have nothing to prove, we only at minimum have to point out the 2300 year failure of natural theology to demonstrate that God does in fact exist.

And again, the terrible predicament of powerful, omni-everything God's contradictory attributes dooming God as a viable concept.

In light of these failures, Atheism has no burden of proof, But strong atheism disproves God, taking up a burden anyway, and dealing successfully with disproving the OEC God, that you claim does not have a burden of proof.

Now, where is your evidence?
Cheerful Charlie