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

Question

ok, so i asked this before.

but... why is "god exists" the positive argument? surely the atheiests need to prove that "science is a brute fact" or "the big bang just happened" or, dare i say it "evolution" just as much.

i love all the "it just does" stuff, that sounds like the atheists argument is based on faith, which the atheists really close to the religious people. what's the differnce between taking a leep of faith to believe in god and taking a leap of faith to believe in science.

oh and btw, i'm an atheist if anything, i just think that religious people get a really hard time, and i wonder if other atheists understand that their belief system is just as in need of proof as the religious systems.

Answer 1

ok....I claim to have a leprachaun living under my bed, but he's invisible and leaves no clues to his existence. prove me wrong.

Answer 2

The burden of proof is on anybody making an existential claim. Of course scientific belief systems require as much proof as religion, because they make such claims all the time. If they didn't have proof, that I could observe, I wouldn't believe them.

For example, if I wanted to claim that the big bang happened (i.e. assert the existence of rapid expansion from a singularity) then I would need to provide proof. I can do that, in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation, or the red shift of every observed galaxy, or the fact that there's so much more H and He in the universe by number than other elements.

If I wanted to assert the "existence" of evolution, I would need to provide proof. I could do that with the fossil record or genetic differences and similarities between varying species.

If I wanted to assert the existence of a God, I would need proof. I can't provide any, and nobody else can either.

Answer 3

You are implying that belief in God and respect for scientific theory are mutually exclusive, that everyone believes in one or the other. I don't think that is so. You also imply that having faith is only for the religious. Again, I disagree.
If I believe in [idea number 201], and you don't, the burden of proof lies with me.
That applies whether [idea number 201] is the existence of God, or the Big Bang theory, or evolution.
You say that religious people get a really hard time - maybe they are just getting a lot of backlash for centuries of trying to impose a belief system on others.

Answer 4

I think both sides take it too far sometimes, but that's usually only certain individuals.

As for the argument itself... If I told you that I have an invisible flying pink elephant I call George in my livingroom and the only way you can ever be "saved" is if you believe in it... wouldn't the burden of proof be mine? Or would you have to prove that there isn't an invisible flying pink elephant in my livingroom? When it comes down to a Debate, the burden usually falls on the person making the claim. I just don't think every person I talk to about religion (or anything else) is automatically wanting to debate the issue. Sometimes they're only expressing their point of view... which doesn't make it a debate.

Answer 5

Can you please provide the links where a scientist(s) was quoted as saying "the big bang just happened" and "science is a brute fact".
You say you're an atheist, but it seems you have no idea what atheism is. It is a lack of a belief in any god. Since when is that a "belief system"? You have some deep misunderstandings of some things. Perhaps you have conversed with some less that intelligent atheists?

Answer 6

Evolution, the big bang, and science are not atheism. They have nothing to do with atheism. Those do require evidence to back them up.
*Atheism* is nothing more than not believing in the existence of gods. The religious believe that there is a God. They tell us that there is a God. We don't believe them. Therefore, it is their responsibility to provide proof for their claim. It's not up to us to prove that someone else's claim (that we don't believe) is false.

Answer 7

Neither the big bang nor evolution disprove the existance of a god

If you want to claim something exists then it's up to you to prove that it does actually exist

Oh and there's plenty of "proof" aka evidence for evolution. The big bang I don't know that much about though but if folks want to say it's the origin of the universe then they do have to "prove" that it is. We don't ask those who don't believe the big bang happened to prove that it didn't

Answer 8

In order for something to be a fact there has to be proof. There is no proof of a God. None at all. Why would I need proof that there is no proof. Look around you and you'll see no facts. In the absents of fact it leaves us with only two options. Blind faith or that there is no God. I don't care if all 6 billion people on this earth told me that I could jump off a 10 story building and walk away fine, without proof, I'm not jumping.

Answer 9

it rather is an impossible concern, isn't it? faith is desperate by potential of concept in some thing that can't be shown or shown by potential of rational potential. Atheists basically settle for rational or logical proofs. subsequently, the claims of religion can by no potential be shown to an atheist because of the discontinuity of what constitutes "info." For the non secular, this is a subjective adventure. IMO, this suggests each and every faith is a faith of one; no 2 reports are the comparable, no count how many human beings declare to have uncomplicated ideals and awareness of a non secular adventure. i will guess that one guy's God seems very diverse from yet another's. as a effect, faith reinforces the internal maximum and separates us one from yet another if we shield that our version is the only appropriate one. To tutor your guy or woman God to an atheist, you're able to could build a logical framework wherein your thought of God is critical and likewise nicely suited with the atheist's present worldview, which, of direction, does not contain a deity. How could you are trying this? you notice the situation of separation and how an unseen tension will enhance the thought of separation? this is plenty much less complicated to tutor issues that anyone can see and attempt bodily. yet this "God thought" is a stressful component. What in case you have a statue and the non secular guy or woman worships it, asserting this is God? The atheist says "this is basically a statue." how are you able to tutor God in an merchandise that each and each you will see? the only way i might desire to verify to try this is to equate God with count and power. God might desire to be the debris of silicon dioxide that make up this statue...then, of direction, why does not the sand interior the motor vehicle parking zone be God? It, too, is silicon dioxide. you notice how immediately this situation will become an absurdity? One can't tutor God if one can't define God.

Answer 10

Being an atheist doesn't mean you believe in the big bang. It means you don't believe in God/Gods.

If you want scientific evidence for things, check out the science section.

"God Exists" is a positive arguement because you're making a positive claim about something. Just because you don't understand the workings of logic and critical thinking doesn't make the rest of the world wrong.

Answer 11

Because the religious are the ones claiming there's a magic invisible sky fairy that talks to them.

If I claim that a Velociraptor jumped through the window, ate the rather tasty chocolate bar that until recently was sitting in my desk, and then ran away, that is not assumed to be true unless you can prove it wrong. I made the outrageous, ridiculous, laughable claim - the burden of proof is on me.

You also appear to have a misunderstanding of the term "faith". That's not required for science - science is the study of evidence. Faith exists without, and sometimes in spite of, evidence.