why do atheists think that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the religious?

Answer 1

For the same reason that you would expect it of me if I claimed that there were polka-dotted chimpanzees dancing on your head at this very moment.

If my entire argument were "You can't prove that there aren't!", you'd very quickly come to understand the importance of getting the burden of evidence right.

I suggest that you carefully read the response below given by Radictis. He is taking the honest theist stance, admitting that his belief is based in faith, and properly understanding the role of faith in religious belief. If the believers in general understood religion and belief as well as he apparently does, we would be having a MUCH better conversation here.

My sincere respects to you, Radictis.

Answer 2

This is an impossible scenario, isn't it? Faith relies on belief in something that cannot be shown or proven by rational means. Atheists only accept rational or logical proofs. Therefore, the claims of religion can NEVER be proven to an atheist because of the discontinuity of what constitutes "evidence." For the religious, it is a subjective experience. IMO, this means every religion is a religion of one; no two experiences are the same, no matter what number of people claim to have common beliefs and understanding of a spiritual experience. I'll bet that one man's God looks very different from another's. Thus, religion reinforces the personal and separates us one from another if we maintain that our version is the only correct one.

To prove your personal God to an atheist, you would have to construct a logical framework wherein your concept of God is integral and also compatible with the atheist's existing worldview, which, of course, does not include a deity. How would you do this? You see the problem of separation and how an unseen force increases the perception of separation? It is far easier to prove things that everyone can see and test physically. But this "God concept" is a tricky thing.

What if you have a statue and the religious person worships it, saying it IS God? The atheist says "it's only a statue." How can you prove God in an object that all can see? The only way I could see to do it is to equate God with matter and energy. God may be the particles of silicon dioxide that make up this statue...then, of course, why wouldn't the sand in the parking lot be God? It, too, is silicon dioxide. You see how quickly this problem becomes an absurdity? One cannot prove God if one cannot define God.

Answer 3

It has nothing to do with religion, it is a rule of logic and science. If someone make an assertion i.e. "Santa is real" or proposes a hypothesis i.e. "the world is a large ball", then they need to present the proof and/or evidence that what they say is true.

This is done as it has long been known that trying to disprove any statement, i.e. proving the negative, can not be done. For example, if I assert that Santa is real, it is impossible for you to prove that Santa is not real. This is why the burden of proof rests on the claimant.

Edit:
By the way, this is the difference between the theory of evolution and ID/creationism. Evolution has had massive evidence presented for it and is constantly being objectively reviewed subject matter experts. ID has no supporting evidence and was never review by subject matter experts. Creationism doesn't present any evidence but claims to find serious flaws that trained, knowledgeable experts have overlooked.

Answer 4

Because religious people are positing the existence of something. It is really frustrating how so many believers are unable/unwilling to grasp the importance of this. If you are positing the existence of something (i.e. God, a distant star, a species of mold, etcetera) then as the person positing the existence, you have the obligation to provide evidence.

Atheists merely say "I do not believe in God because there is no physical evidence for the existence of such a being." You can't demand that somebody provide evidence for the lack of evidence. I'm not sure why this concept is difficult to grasp. If somebody says "I don't believe you that this particular phenomenon exists because I have seen no evidence for its existence and I am not satisfied that anybody has ever provided evidence that it exists" it is not logically acceptable to tell that person "well, prove there is no evidence." You can only either provide evidence or concede that you don't have any.

Sometimes believers will present what they consider to be "evidence" for the existence of God. This evidence is generally something extremely subjective, i.e. personal testimony. This is not evidence in the scientific sense--ie, it is not testable, and hence Atheists reject it. In all fairness, though, personal testimony has always been regarded as a legitimate means of personal persuasion. It is convincing to many people, regardless of not being logical.

Most intelligent theologians and Christian writers have realized there is no logical proof for God--so they don't try to argue objectively. The reason fundies are so readily drawn into these inappropriate arguments about proof is because they want to use their beliefs to justify setting laws for all of society. Of course no rational, educated western individual in 200 years or more has thought it appropriate to base public law on the personal, subjective beliefs of a minority.

Answer 5

I believe in Leprechauns. I believe they are the creators of all things, I am thinking about teaching children in public schools this belief, because I know it to be true...

Now, you might think that I am silly, but you cannot PROVE that Leprechauns don't exist. Try, you can't do it. It is not possible to prove a negative, especially when faith is involved.

That is why the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

If I want to effect other peoples behaviors, beliefs, taxes, children, traditions and rituals because of your belief system, you should have a little burden of proof on your shoulders.

If the burden of proof was on the recipients of the thousands of belief systems that float through society, we would spend all our time trying to convince people that unicorns really don't exist.

Answer 6

If you claim it and try to get other to believe as you do, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

It is like if I was to say that satan is wearing a pink thong under his cloak. I have to prove such a statement. You can't automatically agree with me unless I have something to back up my statement.

Answer 7

Burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Answer 8

Because if I claim that something exists and you do not believe me, I have to prove it to you. If I say that on Mars there are transparent horses that fly, and even the most powerful telescopes cannot detect them, but they reveal themselves regularly to me when I sit on a mountain after fasting 24 hours, you do not have to prove that what I say is fantasy. You KNOW that! I have to prove to you that it isn't fantasy.

Imagination doesn't require any effort. Proving that something is true, requires logical reasoning - that's mental effort! This is why we do not convict someone based on what faith reveals to us. Would you like a country where God is the judge in a court of law? Who is going to receive the truth from God and declares who is guilty and who is innocent? The Pope? The Ayatollahs? The Grand Chief of the Australian aborigines? You? Who?

Answer 9

Isn't that how our entire justice system is set up? When someone makes a claim, someone needs to prove that claim. Would you argue that scientists don't need to provide proof for evolution, or would you feel it was your burden to disprove it?

Answer 10

"Remember that the burden of proof is on the person alleging the existence of something. If someone tells me that the Easter Bunny is hiding in somebody's clothes closet somewhere in North America, there is no need for me to search every closet on the continent. The person making the claim has to either produce the rabbit, or stop wasting my time."

Answer 11

Exactly. If a religious person wants to "delude" themselves and believe in something that isn't there, then how is that hurting the atheists? But in the same argument if an atheist wants to "delude" themselves in believing there is no God how is that hurting the religious? It's not. The only main difference is the religious always have some sort of eternal consequence for not "believing" and atheism doesn't. If you believe there is no hell you better be right!