Does the atheist have the burden of proof?

Question

If the majority of the planet's population believes in a supreme being of some sort does that make the burden of proof the responsibility of the atheist making the case that there is no supreme being?

I know some, not all, like to say that the burden of proof lies with the theist but I say belief is the norm in this case so the burden of proof lies with the atheist.

I don't have precise stats but you can find some here:
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0855613.html

Keep in mind this question is religion neutral.

What do you think?

If 'no' then why not?

Please don't bring up the Pink Unicorn thing:

"The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it’s in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized. However, not only is this false and a mere play on words, but it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons."

My similiar theist question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070801124048AAmJv3S&r=w

I'm building up to a capstone question.

Answer 1

For an atheist who decrees that he knows for a fact that no gods exist, yes, the burden would lie on him.

For an atheist who simply says to believers who say their god exists, "prove it". He is entirely in the right.

(Just as you would be if someone of another religion told you his god was the only god. You would say "prove it". And you would be right to do so. You're not the one making an extraordinary claim)

Answer 2

No.
The burden of proof lies with the party who makes the claim that god exists, that's not what some people think, it's a fact of logic. There are millions of children in the U.S. currently believing in Santa. If no one ever told them otherwise, they would continue to believe as adults. All that would be necessary would be explanations as to why Santa didn't continue to bring them presents. Perhaps Santa is angry with everyone. It's the same with gods.
Faith is belief without evidence. Belief in itself proves nothing because belief is not evidence, obviously. That one person or a billion people have faith proves nothing.

Answer 3

No, the burden of proof lies with the side with the positive assertion.

The theist claims there is a god - they must provide evidence for it. If we assume something exists unless we can disprove it, we can imagine anything we like and expect others to believe it.

Answer 4

Common wisdom is not a source of rational argument. Atheism is not a declaration, but only an answer to the declaration that there is a god. Truly, it is the same thing as saying there are no fairies. When you say that, all you need do is point to the lack of supporting evidence to offer a sound argument. Honestly, that is all I do.

Your questions are always reasonable and considerate. I do appreciate that you debate in such an earnest manner.

Answer 5

The fallacy of your argument is that might does not make right. Since most children believe in Santa, do the other children need to provide a burden of proof? The Numbers Fallacy does not work.

Nobody has ever proved a negative. I believe the universe was created by a giant walking stick, I burden you to prove me wrong.

Answer 6

I think if you make a statement you should have the evidence to back it up. If a person says "There is no god" that person should be ready to prove there is no god. If a theist says "There is a god" that person should be ready to prove it.
Now an atheist can (and many on here do) provide proof against different religions. But they can't provide proof against a god.
A theist can't provide proof for there religion or a general god.
I'm agnostic. Agnostics admit they can't prove or disprove a general god.

Answer 7

I was not born to prove that there is no god. So no I don't have to prove anything. And the fact that there are more people of faith only means that human beings have been brain washed with the "god belief" for thousands of years. In the future, we will see a lot more atheist as more people learn about science and give up that silly notion that god created everything.

Answer 8

Proof ALWAYS lies with the claimant. If you claim something to be true, then it is your responsibility to show evidence. I am an atheist, I cannot prove a negative.
If someone murdered my friend and I blamed on person X simply because I told the judge and jury to 'have faith' in my accusation, would you believe it?

Answer 9

So you should have to prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not dancing on the moon and in need of protected species status?

The person with the claim is the one who has to provide proof if they require some kind of validation.

If Christians want to believe in God, there's nothing I can do to stop them, and I really couldn't care less. However, when they profess to speak for him and demand special treatment, then I demand proof of their claim. Or when they deny what is otherwise evident.

Edit: Ok, I know that the IPU is a straw man. But it's also a good point about proving a negative. You just can't do it. (Without internal inconsistency in the argument, anyway.)

Answer 10

this is not a situation in which there is a side which functions in the same capacity as the prosecutor for the state, which does have the burden of proof.

I say no, no side has the burden of proof, because no consequences unfold as a result of one's belief, ie, I won't go to jail or not as a result of my belief.