Theists vs. Atheists?

Question

I have noticed some of the questions coming up about proving/disproving some foundations of ideologies.
I just thought I'd ask this:
Who do you think the burden of proof is on the shoulders of; the Theists, or the Atheists? why or why not?

Answer 1

I think the burden, in either case, is one of persuasion rather than of proof. Theists, for the most part, believe in something (or Someone) that cannot be proven. Atheists, on the other hand, believe in the absence of that something (or Someone) - and an absence is likewise impossible to prove.

Generally speaking, any burden of proof or persuasion would fall on the side of those claiming existence rather than absence. However, this depends on context. If the question is simply the existence of God, the burden of persuasion would fall on the theists. On the other hand, when the question is how the universe came to be, atheists positively put forth a naturalistic explanation, and to the extent they want to support that positive explanation, the burden would fall on them in that regard. Whoever is offering a claim of something/Someone existing or occurring has the burden of persuasion in attempting to support the claim.

Answer 2

Ordinary nowadays means to believe in God. So the extraordinary claim SEEMS to be to prove that he isn't really there. But once you're an atheist, the perspective changes. All of a sudden you think, wait, there's no evidence, why are all these people praying when they don't even know for sure?

There is no burden of proof after all. Religion is a way of life that one decides to take due to a subjective need or lack of intellectual enthusiasm in order to fill any mystery with the letters GOD. Whereas atheists realize they don't know the truth of how and when the universe started and have a lot of unsolved mysteries ready to be solved so that tommorow's theists (as today's know why twisters exist) will know why the universe started, or life or any other "miracle".

Answer 3

I would submit that while some individuals are athiests because they do not have proof that meets there specific criteria for proof, many simply do not WANT there to be a god. It is very easy to observe the human condition around us and ask questions that encompass the sentiment, "If God is real, how come (fill in the blank.)" If someone CHOOSES not to believe, no amount of testimony, historical data, or proof will sway that position.

Christians often fall into the trap of getting into such a debate ill-prepared. Many Christians also do a poor job of representing our Savior. We pay lip-service to Him, but our personal lives reflect little devotion and discipline. This is common fuel for the athiest. Curiously, when a Christian is living such the exemplary life, he/she is mocked as well. It is not a Christian's task to "prove" God's existence. God has already provided that information. One can accept or reject. The Christian accepts, the athiest rejects. As a Christian, it is not my job to "prove" God to a "rejector." It is my task, however, to live my life as a testament to Christ's sacrifice and resurrection. My indivudual shortcomings in that area, again, are fuel for the athiest. Fact is many (or most) people dislike ultimatums, even if they are saturated with love and mercy. If God were a figment of my imagination and my devotion to Him only a delusion (as Dawkins would suggest), I certainly would not suscept myself to a God as revealed in the Holy Bible. It is rather obvious (at least to me) that THAT God is the LAST god a human being would create for personal comfort. Instead, I would elect to go with Wicca or something that would allow me some control over my god(s).
Or else be an athiest. That's really the easiest route to take. Just pretend God (any god) does not exist. That way, I have absolutely no accountability to anyone anywhere.

Answer 4

Theists are making the positive claim that something exists. The burden of proof lies on them.

It's very simple reasoning. If I were tell you about a invisible dragon living in my garage, wouldn't the burden of proof lie on me to prove this dragon's existence instead of you to prove it didn't? And then when you couldn't prove that the dragon existed I'd jump around triumphantly saying, "because you can't prove it, that means he's real! Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!"

Seriously however, if you make the positive claim that something exists the burden of proof lies on you to prove it. The only problem in this case is they can't because their belief is based on faith alone. They have no proof so they try to turn the tables. The problem is, that's being intellectually dishonest.

Answer 5

Theists.

If you claim that something exists, it is up to you to define what it is you're claiming to exist and give evidence for that existence. The atheist is just unconvinced by the theist's arguments. You don't have any burden of being unconvinced.

Of course, the atheist can bring up evidence that shows that gods are man-made myths handed down through the ages. They can also point to human nature and give evidence of people making up and strongly believing many superstitions, myths, and other religions. When the atheist presents this, he is making a positive claim, which puts that part of the burden on him to uphold.

However, the main burden of proof still lies with the theists.

Answer 6

From a purely technical point of view, burden of proof must lay on the theists, because science has repeatedly proven all of its provable claims, and since it is impossible to prove a negative (try disproving that there are invisible pink unicorns in your attic!), it's up to theists to prove their side.
I would be delighted to read and understand any solid evidence that a theist could provide pursuant to the proof of god.

Answer 7

A theist is saying there is an absolute. The atheist is asking for the proof or an indication of that absolute. The burden of proof is totally on the theists.

Answer 8

The burden on proof rests on those making the fantastical claims, regardless of whether they are in the majority or manority. Since they claim the fairy tales are some kind of truth, they the theists are the once that must provide proof. I'm sure they will disagree, but then they have to answer why they don't believe in all the other deities, instead of just the one their particular cult follows.

Answer 9

You cannot take as your logical starting point that everything imaginable and unimaginable exists until you can prove that it does not exist. Not only is it not proactical, its just plain stupid.

Instead the starting point is that you only accept that things exist once presented with evidence. This is how we lead our daily lives, build our societies, construct our science and understand our world.

Except with religion.

Where people try to turn the tables.

The burden is clearly on the theist to prove the existence of what he proposes. Not the other way around.

Answer 10

According to logic rules, the burden of proof is on the claimant, or in case of science, the person making the hypothesis. Therefore it's up to the theists to prove their claim.

Note:
Even if proving God is impossible, there should be evidence of any physical actions he took in this world, like creation or the flood.