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.

If you assert there is a God, burden of proof is on you. In academia, most everybody understands burden of proof, and in professional journals editors and peer reviewers don't allow such games

2300 years ago, Plato essentially invented natural theology, attempts to prove God exists. 2300 years later theologians and professors of religious philosophy have admitted that after 2300 years there is no evidence for God. No one good argument that settles the issue in the affirmative.

Theology has not met the burden, and all Atheists have to do is point out that obvious fact of life. Beyond that, there is nothing left to do.

But atheism can in fact do more. The burden is not on atheism, but atheism can successfully take on the burden and succeed.

That is, strong atheism can examine the claimed attributes and nature if God and examine that logically. And God as defined by Bible, Quran et al presents a God that is hopelessly self contradictory and impossible. Proof in a logical sense that essentially demonstrates theology's omni-everything creator God cannot exist.

So burden of proof is back on your shoulders, but if after 2300 years on evidence has been found, I don't think you can demonstrate any.
.

.

[Faith No More]

How does this relate to you assuming that people who don't believe in God fill the "void" (which I don't think even exists) with substance abuse?

He's so addicted to Jesus that he can't understand how anyone can live their life without a metaphysical crutch, so he has to naturally assume that atheists use a physical one. Thankfully, not all of us suffer from the same mental defects that he(I'm sick of writing he/she, so you're a dude from now on, SoC) does.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

Substance addiction or addiction to anything in general is what people will use to fill the void in their life when don't have their refuge in the Lord, you have their a safe port to set anchor rather than finding yourself tossed around on the turbulent seas of life.

I've found that it's generally the other way around; they simply swap one addiction for another. A sizeable proportion of people consider their new found atheism to be life-affirming and liberating.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest you got that particular nugget of misinformation from a christian source. Well, that or you made it up

[Clueless Morgan]

So that's the sickness, but here is the cure!

Thank you for making my point.

The cure is a pasty, red bearded, half-naked nordic man in a dress???

No, clearly this Jesus cannot be the real savior: Gingers don't have souls.

[Cinjin]

So that's the sickness, but here is the cure!

Thank you for making my point.

The cure is a pasty, red bearded, half-naked nordic man in a dress???

No, clearly this Jesus cannot be the real savior: Gingers don't have souls.

Ever notice that the christian god and all his angels/peeps are all pristine beautiful white people?
I'm pretty sure Jesus would've been a 5'8 dark skin black haired Israeli, yet still "god and all his heavenly slaves" are always portrayed as white people.

Either god's a racist or the church is full of shit.
...or wait... it's both.

[Brakeman]

Thank you for making my point.


No, clearly this Jesus cannot be the real savior: Gingers don't have souls.

Ever notice that the christian god and all his angels/peeps are all pristine beautiful white people?
I'm pretty sure Jesus would've been a 5'8 dark skin black haired Israeli, yet still "god and all his heavenly slaves" are always portrayed as white people.

Either god's a racist or the church is full of shit.
...or wait... it's both.

No, not just that either, god doesn't want to see you if you are ugly, with a flat nose, or with defective male genitalia, or if you have any disease.

Leviticus 21:17-20

21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
21:18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
21:19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
21:20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

[Sword of Christ]

Ever notice that the christian god and all his angels/peeps are all pristine beautiful white people?

Probably because white people painted them.

I'm pretty sure Jesus would've been a 5'8 dark skin black haired Israeli, yet still "god and all his heavenly slaves" are always portrayed as white people.

People will tend to depict him like themselves I've seen black, Chinese, Indian and Native American Jesus's. But if you're being historical he would have looked Jewish/middle eastern.




You still know who that's meant to be.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

You still know who that's meant to be.

Michael Jackson?

[StuW]

You still know who that's meant to be.

Michael Jackson?

Pre Billy-Jean years?

[Doubting Thomas]

I think it's funny that Jesus, if he actually existed, would look like the brown people who fundamentalist Christians think are all Muslim terrorists and want to drop bombs on so much.