Argument # 29: Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the Theist, not the Atheist.http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/how_to_respond_to_a_supercilio.html
"The Irrational Atheists", has a free ebook you can download: http://www.irrationalatheist.com
29 comments
Problem of nomenclature: Theists tend to use the dictionary definition of Atheism. The definition used by "modern" Atheists tends to be more akin to that which Theists would typically call Agnistics.
That said, even IF you are dealing with "dcitioanry Atheism", your argumnent is still incorrect, as there is as much proof for/against the mainstream deninition of God as there is for the non-sisttence of said view of God. And I say that as a Theist!
"Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it."
But wait, I thought deep down, atheists knew god exists.
"Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it. "
How exactly do you know what we believe, and know what we know? How can you say what each and every one of us claimed don't claim? Have you spoken with every atheist on the planet? Can you read minds? That would make you a witch, and you know what your book says to do with witches, don't you?
If you get to say what we all claim, believe, and know, then we get to tell all of you theists what you claim, what you believe, and what you know, too.
"Deep down, they believe that there is no God"
Not quite. Atheists just haven't been convinced there is a God because of lack of evidence. And Scripture quotes and claims like "There HAS to be a God! The alternative is that nothing created everything and that's just absurd!" don't qualify as evidence.
It's similar to claiming you've invented a realization of the Back To The Future flux capacitor, a device making time travel possible; YOU have to prove that it works.
You don't get to say: "Skeptics *believe* that my device doesn't work, meaning *they* have the burden of proof, not me! As long as noone can prove that my device doesn't work, everyone has to just take my word for that it does work!"
"This is a technicality that Atheists use to try to put the burden on the other side"
In that case, Haruhi Suzumiya is God:
image
And it's your burden to prove that she isn't .
After that, you may proceed to prove that His Holy Sauciness the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, JR 'Bob' Dobbs, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Eris, and Princess Celestia are God too. For you are A -FSM, A -Cthulhu, A -JR 'Bob' Dobbs, A -Invisible Pink Unicorn, A -Eris & A -Sunbutt if you can't .
Like the Cre(a)ti(o)nists' 'Teach the Controversy' 'Plan B', post-Kitzmiller vs. Dover, your own ir rationality has blown up in your own faces.
If you claim, "The sky is purple", it's up to you to provide evidence that the sky is purple. Us "A-purple-sky-ists" are perfectly justified in not believing what you say until you present such evidence that what you're saying is true. We aren't making the claim, so we have no burden of proof.
If you claim "A supernatural god exists", it's up to you to provide evidence that your supernatural god exists and can do what you claim. Us "A-theists" are perfectly justified in not believing what you say until you present such evidence that what you're saying is true. We aren't making the claim, so we have no burden of proof.
Simple. YOUR CLAIM, YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.
"To try to be consistent with it, they will say “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”, but sometimes they slip up.
They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative."
I agree logically with this statement only.
This is a common tactic by those who try to claim that both sides are equal, both sides need to prove their point, and that since atheists can't prove there is no god their argument that there is one deserves equal credit.
Which is bullshit, of course. They're desperately trying to pretend they don't have the burden of proof, when they most assuredly do. They have to show God exists. All I have to do is poke holes in their argument. Which, of course, is easy 99% of the time, because most of the arguments are either trivial or stupid.
They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative.
You can't prove that the chair you're sitting on will continue to exist, either. You believe it by inductive reasoning: chairs have never been known to vanish and there's no known force that could make them vanish. At some point, unless you're perverse or are merely playing word games, you can rationally believe the chair won't disappear. The atheist applies a similar inductive reasoning to the existence of God: He's never been seen, doesn't appear to do anything that doesn't have a natural explanation and doesn't appear to treat believers any differently than non-believers. The rational conclusion is either that He doesn't exist or His existence is irrelevant to us.
Actually, semantics is EXACTLY the reason atheists have to be careful in debates to not say "God doesn't exist" and instead have to say the more correct "there isn't enough evidence that God exists". When someone says "There are no leprechauns" I automatically understand that they aren't saying "there's absolute proof that leprechauns don't exist anywhere in any universe" they're saying "there isn't enough evidence to believe that they exist". Everyone understands that. However, as soon as an atheist makes a similar statement about God, a theist will jump down his throat and demand proof that no god exists in any form, anywhere, ever. And if the atheist can't meet that ludicrous burden of proof then the theist declares him/herself the winner. It's much easier just to say "there isn't enough evidence to convince me that God exists as described in [insert holy book here]" every time than to say the simpler "God doesn't exist" and have to deal with the waterfall of bullshit and posturing that comes with it. The burden of proof hasn't actually changed, you're still the one that's making a life-altering claim, so you still have to furnish the evidence to convince the skeptic. Otherwise they will continue to not believe you.
OK then, if you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist, then it's up to you to prove that they don't.
But it's all very simple. You want me to believe in your god? Convince me that he exists beyond any doubt.
"They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative."
We can prove all kinds of gods don't exist, but then that's exactly the problem. For nearly every believer, even those who claim to believe in the same god, actually hold different ideas/conceptions of their "god". Endlessly morphing made up bullshit is what it is.
Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it.
Okay, let's say that's true. Let's say every atheist is a die hard denier. Guess what, it doesn't make a damn difference. You STILL need to provide evidence that your god exists to demonstrate your position. If Steve claimed that they can jump 900 ft. straight up in the air and I vehemently denied that humans could jump at all does that mean it's up to me to prove that jumping is impossible and if I can't then Steve is automatically right and he really can jump 900 ft.? Or can I, despite whatever I may personally believe, still dispute the assertion that Steve can jump 900 ft.?
Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it.
Yet another theist who has developed the telepathy needed to be sure of what all atheists, deep down, really believe.
Argument # 29: Infidels don’t claim that Allah doesn’t exist. They lack belief in Allah. The burden of proof for Allah is on the Muslim, not the Infidel.
This is a technicality that Infidels use to try to put the burden on the other side. They claim that since “non-Islam” means “without a belief in Allah”, they are not claiming anything and therefore do not have to prove anything. Thus, they claim, the burden of proof is on the Muslim, who claims that Allah exists.
However, this makes little difference either way because their core philosophy toward Allah is still the same. Deep down, they believe that there is no Allah, and they know it. The reason why they emphasize this is to try to put themselves in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, they will say “There is no evidence for Allah” rather than “Allah doesn't exist”, but sometimes they slip up.
They can’t really prove that Allah doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative. Regardless, the Infidel obviously believes deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in their attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of Allah. Therefore this trivial debate about the implications of the word “non-Islam” seems pointless in substance.
The null argument is, and always has been, disbelief.
I do not accept something as true or existing without evidence to justify that belief. Skepticism must be the default in all cases.
Religion would like to be exempted from this fundamental rule of logic. However there is no basis for such an exemption.
If you want me to believe in God (or Bigfoot, or the Yeti, or eight foot tall rabbits) you must present compelling evidence to justify such a belief.
In an argument, you have to respond to what people say, not what you think they're thinking. So your pussyfooting is as irrelevant as you think the distinction between weak and strong atheism is.
Besides, you can prove a negative, no matter what the old adage says. If something produces observations that are entirely inconsistent with observations collected empirically, that is sufficient proof of the negative. Gathering the observations or proving their inconsistency is another story, but if it is done the negative is proven.
I, the guy on the other side of your monitor, am an enormous pink bumblebee who once built the Sun around me and is in the process of sending supernatural bees to Earth. These bees have been designed specifically to target righteous humans. If these bees sting you, you shall be absolved of your sin of slacking off on the job. If not, I will drown you in a colossal planet covered in pink honey.
Prove me wrong.
So God existing is the default, and the burden of proof is on us.
Well bigfoot, unicorns, pixies, fairies, peter pan, the kraken, minotaurs, dragons, werewolves, vampires, slender man, and all the scp foundation must also exist. Because nobody has ever proved they don't!
Reality check yourself before you wreck yourself.
Actually, he/she is kind of right, as far as I'm concerned. I am as certain that no gods (or other supernatural beings) exist as any fundamentalist is that one does. It is pretty hard to prove a negative, though, and I seldom bother trying.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
