Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Walking Void]

But Vinny, theists have the burden of proof, and never carried it.

Instead, they roll the boulder, flattening each other.

Atheists look at the boulder, say "fuck that", and go get a crane to legitimately see if they can pick up the boulder.

There's plenty of theists (trying) to carry the burden of proof, with varying degrees of success, and at the highest level of philosophical discourse.

To simply claim there are none is, I find
-grossly ignorant
-grossly deceptive
-or grossly misunderstood about what the burden of proof entails.

I mean, just because you claim "Theistic argument A is rubbish" doesn't mean it actually is, any more than claiming "Evolution never happened" means evolution never really happened.

I mean, Alvin P, probably one of the greatest Philosophers of Religion alive (and a mentor to my favorite young atheist philosopher Bradley Monton) discussed two dozen, count it again, two dozen theistic arguments in one lecture.

Predictably, you would claim "But they're all crap arguments", much like someone would say "Dude your evidence for a round earth is all crap. Flat-eartherism 4 LYFE!"

But deep down, I hope you won't. I hope you will take the time to refute them one by one. Or, at least recognize that they are worth addressing instead of dismissing out of ignorance.

That's something theists do. Not us.

Maybe it is my style of speech or the way I articulate an idea, but I misphrased my statement as it was misunderstood.

When I said, "But Vinny, theists have the burden of proof, and never carried it.

Instead, they roll the boulder, flattening each other", I meant that theists believe in a god, and that is where they fail prematurely. Theism just accepts god. They "think" it is true. This is what believing and faith does. You just "think" that there is a god. Theists that challenge those arguments (balloon arguments nonetheless), are not even theists. They are agnostic maybe even atheistic to challenge/test the theistic arguments or claims. If You are truly theistic, You never challenge faith and continue thinking the god claim is true. Only people who doubt the idea of god challenge god, none are theists, and this is what I meant to say.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

There's plenty of theists (trying) to carry the burden of proof, with varying degrees of success, and at the highest level of philosophical discourse.

To simply claim there are none is, I find
-grossly ignorant
-grossly deceptive
-or grossly misunderstood about what the burden of proof entails.

I mean, just because you claim "Theistic argument A is rubbish" doesn't mean it actually is, any more than claiming "Evolution never happened" means evolution never really happened.

I mean, Alvin P, probably one of the greatest Philosophers of Religion alive (and a mentor to my favorite young atheist philosopher Bradley Monton) discussed two dozen, count it again, two dozen theistic arguments in one lecture.

Predictably, you would claim "But they're all crap arguments", much like someone would say "Dude your evidence for a round earth is all crap. Flat-eartherism 4 LYFE!"

But deep down, I hope you won't. I hope you will take the time to refute them one by one. Or, at least recognize that they are worth addressing instead of dismissing out of ignorance.

That's something theists do. Not us.

Maybe it is my style of speech or the way I articulate an idea, but I misphrased my statement as it was misunderstood.

When I said, "But Vinny, theists have the burden of proof, and never carried it.

Instead, they roll the boulder, flattening each other", I meant that theists believe in a god, and that is where they fail prematurely. Theism just accepts god. They "think" it is true. This is what believing and faith does. You just "think" that there is a god. Theists that challenge those arguments (balloon arguments nonetheless), are not even theists. They are agnostic maybe even atheistic to challenge/test the theistic arguments or claims. If You are truly theistic, You never challenge faith and continue thinking the god claim is true. Only people who doubt the idea of god challenge god, none are theists, and this is what I meant to say.

I'm not sure that makes sense because if there was just belief, arguments wouldn't even be necessary. Theists would just be leaving people alone, or forcing them to believe, not resorting to arguments.

[Walking Void]

You can be a sceptical person, but if that interferes with one's own belief. Boom, no longer a theist. They are exclusive but they can still collide.

[popeyespappy]

As far as evidence goes I'd be happy with the big guy/girl rapturing all the true believers so they can bask in its presence forever then leaving my happy ass alone.

[Walking Void]

I did like that 1 episode of American Dad where the rapture takes place leaving Stan and Jesus to fight off the devil.

[Rahul]

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it. But the idea you might be referring to is Zeno's paradox. And I won't lie, it mystifies me too.

But you asked me about the conception of God because, IIRC we were discussing a minimally sufficient criteria of evidence in order to justify belief in said deity.

Still awaiting a definition. That's step numero uno.

[Gilgamesh]

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.

I don't claim that proof for a god doesn't exist. If it does, it hasn't been shown to me, is all. Still an atheist. (a) is moot, although, (a) isn't required to be an atheist, anyway.

b) is not required to be an atheist.

c) is not required to be an atheist.

Have a good day.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it. But the idea you might be referring to is Zeno's paradox. And I won't lie, it mystifies me too.

But you asked me about the conception of God because, IIRC we were discussing a minimally sufficient criteria of evidence in order to justify belief in said deity.

Still awaiting a definition. That's step numero uno.

I provided one in post #19

http://atheistforums.org/thread-21066-po...#pid512836

---

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.

I don't claim that proof for a god doesn't exist. If it does, it hasn't been shown to me, is all. Still an atheist. Point a) is moot.

b) is not required to be an atheist.

c) is not required to be an atheist.

Have a good day.

I've responded to this one before.

I don't think anyone reasonable really claims that there is proof for God. Rather, there are claims of evidence.

I also think it's a little unusual to expect someone to "show you proof". Rather, if there is evidence out that is compelling to a number of people, I think it's good to "check it out" whether or not anyone brings it to you. After all, I imagine one would naturally want to know whether or not God exists regardless of whether there are people there to serve it to you on a platter.

But what I'm really interested in is your denial of (b). Would you say that it's okay to be an atheist while simultaneously holding that one's own atheism is irrational?

[Bad Writer]

False. I don't care if there's a god or not. If you think there is, then the burden of presenting evidence falls to you, especially if you believe it's important enough for us to know about this.

[Gilgamesh]

But what I'm really interested in is your denial of (b). Would you say that it's okay to be an atheist while simultaneously holding that one's own atheism is irrational?

No. I'll outright say I think theism is irrational, while atheism rational. I'm not claiming that all forms of theism are incorrect. I'm saying I believe they are on the basis that I've never been presented supporting evidence to back their claims.