Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Jackalope]

You do know that preaching is not allowed here, right?

Not even if it's lighthearted?

Do you honestly think a bunch of godless heathens would appreciate being preached at?

[Cinjin]

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

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

[CleanShavenJesus]

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 don't see how this is true, or how your brain works.

[Sword of Christ]

I don't see how this is true, or how your brain works.

You can think of it in terms of how a Buddhist would think of attachment but not the same degree in that you have to detach yourself of these pleasures entirely or live a life of austere asceticism. In Christianity the world being a creation of God isn't a thing to despise but it isn't a thing to worship either.

[CleanShavenJesus]

I don't see how this is true, or how your brain works.

You can think of it in terms of how a Buddhist would think of attachment but not the same degree in that you have to detach yourself of these pleasures entirely or live a life of austere asceticism. In Christianity the world being a creation of God isn't a thing to despise but it isn't a thing to worship either.

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?

[Sword of Christ]

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?

Because the drug has become what they revere and crave more than than God, it's something of this world that will ruin them. It will happen to everyone without God to at least some degree you will invest all your value and worth into someone or something in this world. If that thing goes wrong for you it will be a devastating blow as that's what you have placed all your value in life in. That's will be your idol whatever it is. If you focus on God however everything you like in this world comes along as an added bonus but doesn't have a dominant hold upon you.

I suppose it's possible to practice detachment as Buddhists do though that may take more effort if God isn't doing all the internal work for you.

[Tonus]

In other words, god is a roadblock to getting where you want to get in life.

[Zazzy]

One of my dear old friends (all the way back to 8th grade) is a religious man. Very religious. He's also a homeless crack addict now, despite being one of the smartest and most talented people I ever knew. In his brief tries at sobriety, when we reconnect, he talks a lot about Jesus. And then he goes back to crack. The reason he does this is because he is physiologically addicted to crack, and because he has a lot of self-hatred for being gay, which his religion has only made worse. That's a Jesus-sized hole... right in his psyche. Thanks, Jesus.

[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

[Cyberman]

It will happen to everyone without God to at least some degree you will invest all your value and worth into someone or something in this world. If that thing goes wrong for you it will be a devastating blow as that's what you have placed all your value in life in.

Can't you see that you're running the same sort of risk of a "devastating blow" when you find out that you've fixated your life to a confidence trick? Regardless, welcome to the human condition.

As for all the other claims you made, I believe the popular phrase among the kids is "citation fucking needed" or somesuch.