Should Atheists Be Absolved From The Burden Of Proof?

Question

Earlier, I asked whether atheists who say that god does not exist (many atheists, including myself, do not say this, I must note) must shoulder the burden of proof as well as theists in the discussion of God's existence. Some of the responses I recieved said that atheists could not carry the burden of proof, since it was not possible to prove a negative (to prove that something =doesn't= exist).

So my question is now, does being unable to fully prove our position mean that we do not need to?

One note. When I say "prove" I am not talking about proof in the mathematical sense. We can't be absolutely certain that a God or gods do not exist.

Some interesting answers so far.

Yoda, it's true that you do not have to disprove the teapot's existence in order to say, "I do not believe there is a teapot orbiting Saturn." But should you be required to prove your claim if you state that, "There is no teapot orbiting Saturn?" That's my question here.

chazzychef, are you saying that until something has been proved to exist, it must be assumed to be non-existant? Would you mind explaining your reasoning here? It seems to me that using this same reasoning, we must assume that no new species exist, since they have not yet be proved to.

Answer 1

This touches on a comment I made somewhere around here the other day: an Atheist has to have "faith" that God DOESN'T exist in the same way that a Believer has to have faith that God DOES exist. There is no definitive proof either way.

If, as most Atheists contend, their reason for NOT believing in God is "lack of evidence", then they would be less hypocritical if they categorized themselves as Agnostic (no evidence, so not going to believe either way).

It's very similar to an Optimist seeing the glass half full, while the Pessimist sees the glass half empty; it is impossible to determine which description is correct, b/c the same "evidence" (or lack thereof) is manifest for both descriptions.

I think God will continue to elude our attempts to prove or disprove his existence. It's just the way it is. We can either look at the secondary evidence that suggests his Existence, or we can focus on the lack of primary evidence and continue to argue that therefore he does not exist...

If He were made undeniably manifest to ALL via scientific evidence, then suddenly we would lose our need for Faith: we'd have PROOF instead. It would make things FAR too brainless and easy, wouldn't it?! ;)

Peace.

Answer 2

i think only the most radical atheist even says, "there is absolutely no god!". what i say, and mostly hear, is that there is no proof of god, therefore no reason to believe he exists. we as atheists have NEVER had the burden of proof on us and we cannot if we don't use terms that are absolute. keep the burden of proof on the claimant, where it belongs, not on the disbeliever. it must be up to those who have influenced mankind for thousands of years and who have wrought untold suffering and death, and who continue to dupe humanity on a huge scale who should be made to prove the existence of a being or beings for in some name or other, much evil has been done.

Answer 3

nicely the respond is sure! yet first enable me say which you have an incorrect thought of what an atheist is and what God is. God is an ambiguous term, authentic. yet as quickly as we are saying the be conscious God we are certainly saying an English be conscious. And England being a western ecu usa heavily inspired via "Christian/Catholic" Theology. while somebody says the be conscious God, 9/10 cases they are speaking with regard to the "Christian/Catholic" God. So while somebody says they are an Atheist, 9/10 cases they are speaking with regard to the Western God. A theists do not merchandise to any possible thought that would exist approximately what God is or isn't. We only merchandise to the flagrant fouls. i don't care with regard to the previous greek and roman gods and that i'm not likely to waste time debating lifeless religions. Buddism doesnt somewhat have an thought of a God and not something with regard to the Hindue gods do I merchandise to. i don't evaluate the Tao a god (and as an Atheist I do believe in a form of). I evaluate the Islamic and Jewish God's to be in actuality the comparable thought because of the fact the Christian/Catholic God. thankfully for us Atheists, Protestants have observed lots of the illogical coaching approximately God from the Catholic church's dogma. so as this is the place we can commence. case in point, if God is all loving, effective, and understanding and evil has no fee (a catholic coaching) then why is there evil. If he's all effective, why cant he create a worldwide devoid of evil. If he's all understanding, would not be waiting to comprehend the place the evil is and get rid of it? If he's all good, why does he enable us to proceed suffering? there is not any answer to this situation. I certainly have by no potential heard one. because of the fact the coaching that i'm describing is logically unsuitable. it somewhat is between the numerous logically unsuitable coaching on God, that are being taught specifically via the Catholic Church yet in many cases observed via the Protestants. it is the comparable as though a instructor have been coaching that 2+2=5 and it is the corner stone of what I merchandise to. how are you able to get this incorrect and be "infallible"? i comprehend that Protestants do not say they are "infallible" yet they particular do act like it. somewhat while it consists of their very very own inturpruations of the Bible. And "infallibilty" is what reasons in any different case good people to act interior the main immoral techniques. examine out the Sept 11 extreme jackers. They have been effective there's a God werent they?

Answer 4

This is not a mere claim, this is the laws of logic. Being unable to produce a proof because it is not possible is valid. And if you say you are an Atheist, you say god(s) does not exist, by definition.

Answer 5

Depends. If the atheist states positively that no god exists, then, yes, the burden of proof rests on him/her.
On the if it is the person of faith who insists on shoving their religion in other people's faces, they ought to be armed with provable facts to present as evidence.
It is one thing to tell people what we believe and why, it is quite something else to insist that you, and you alone, WILL convert them.
Plant the seed, and leave it to God.

At least, that is the way this particular Christian feels about it.

Answer 6

I see no reason to have the burden of proof. Those who believe in their gods should be able to prove them. I certainly have the right of reason to not believe anything that has no proof. I will continue that stance until believers prove a god exists. Why can't they? And if they can't, why should I believe? They will continue, with their faith, to believe something that has no proof, and I will continue, with my reason, to not believe something that cannot be proven.

@>}----}----

AD

Answer 7

who says anyone is able to shoulder a burden of proof, the only way any one religion can prove that their god or belief exists is due to a book or other peoples opinion.
that at best is questionable. as anyone can write a book.

How can anyone really prove it

Answer 8

Sure, I'll take the burden of proof.

Only one catch: you have to define "God".

You CAN actually prove a negative. I can prove that there is no highest prime number, or no fraction which when squared gives me back 2. But things are very well-defined in mathematics. Deities are another story.

Answer 9

Exactly. Atheists have no duty to prove the non-existence of God, for God has not shown himself to exist. It is like me saying there is an 8-foot tall pink beast, half zebra/half giraffe, standing in the corner of the room (such a thing certainly doesn't exist, but for the sake of argument...). It is not your responsibility to come up with reasons why it doesn't exist. I should have to prove to everyone that the beast DOES exist...and until I can one must assume that it does not exist.

Answer 10

An atheist have responsibility to prove oneself. there may not be god sitting op on a cloud 'or somewhere else "in a material sense" \but will have to give a helluva lot of explanations.