Why don't atheist have any burden of proof?

Question

I get why agnostics don't need to make any arguments, but both theists and atheists make definitive claims about God.

Don't atheists have any responsibility to make an argument if they make a claim?

I'm talking about the atheists who say God doesn't exist.

atheists sorry

That's true for dancing elves, but what about something else like aliens. If someone said aliens don't exist they'd need to make an argument to support it.

Can't prove a negative? There are no square circles anywhere ever. The proof is in there definitions.

Answer 1

"Don't atheists have any responsibility to make an argument if they make a claim?"

We do have that responsibility, and that's why we make those arguments.

If we were claiming that something existed, we'd have the burden of proof (of evidence, actually) to support that claim. But obviously we don't have the burden of proof with respect to the "god exists" claim, because we're the ones who believe that gods DON'T exist.

If I told you that I can fly by flapping my ears, and you said "No you can't", would it be reasonable of me to respond "Prove it!"?

Obviously not. It works the same with belief in god. You can't have it both ways - if atheists have the burden of proof when they make such claims, then believers have it when they do.

Answer 2

A theist is a person who believes there is a god. An atheist is a person who is not a theist.

An atheist makes no claims about the existence of a god, they simply lack belief. Any atheist who says they can prove that no god exists is definitely making a claim that requires them to take up the burden of proof.

I can make the claim that the god of the desert doesn't exist based on contradictory attributes (a square circle can't, ergo doesn't exist), but that's a whole other question.

Answer 3

The reason is simple and does not just apply to religion. It has long been known that you can not definitively prove that something doesn't exist. So no matter how hard people try, there is no compelling argument or evidence that Unicorns do not exist. Therefore it is a hard and fast rule that the claimant provide proof of their claim. Once again, this has nothing to do with religion.

This is also true in science, we do not just accept a claim, it has to be documented, evidence presented and the findings confirmed by other objective sources.

Edit:
No, you're wrong about both the aliens and the circle and you're missing the point. If I published a paper claiming that aliens absolutely existed, then I would be expected to produce proof. As for your example of definition, you do not prove definitions, you prove postulates and hypotheses.

Serioulsy you need to learn a bit more about logic and it's rules.

Answer 4

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. But atheists definitely have a responsibility to make arguments to support their claims. There are several. Here's one from Preacher turned atheist Dan Barker.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.

Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Answer 5

Do you have a responsibility to make an argument if you believe that aliens from outer space don't exist?

Nah. The people who do believe in aliens are the ones who need to do the research and exploration to prove that they exist. They're the ones making the amazing claim. You can't prove a negative.

Answer 6

for the same reason you don't have the burden of proof in proving that there aren't invisible blue fairies living at the bottom of my garden

Apparently you do think the burden of proof is on you to prove that there aren't invisible blue fairies living at the bottom of my garden.

Please

Go ahead! I'll be intterested to see how you prove the non existance of something

At the very least you could prove the non existance of aliens. Please explain how you go about proving the non existance of aliens

Answer 7

Our claim is that there is no god or gods. End of story. What do you want us to prove? Our definitive proof? You can't prove that which you simply have no proof of. So what is your question. Prove that nothing is nothing? Any god can only exist in someones mind. I can't disprove it if you want to believe in something like that - that's your issue not mine.

I can't see myself being a serf to nothing or just being a serf in general. I don't have to be a slave to something that does not exist. The whole idea of that is ridiculous.

Answer 8

Atheists don't have the burden of proof because you can't prove a negative; for example, prove that there aren't unicorns.

Also, since Christians are the ones that push the belief in God, they are the ones that have something to prove.

EDIT: Seriously, you can't prove a negative. So you say there are no square circles anywhere-prove it. Prove it beyond just saying so. Just you saying that doesn't make it proof.

Answer 9

The same reason we don't need to prove unicorns, UFOs Bigfoot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist.

You can't prove a negative, and the burden of proof is on those who make the claim, not those who deny it.

Besides, if that was the case, they could point to an empty table, say "look, there is no god there" and that would be closer to proof than we could show them of God.

Remember, ours is a belief that requires faith... which means it operates without needing any proof. When you feel the need to prove something, it shows you don't have enough faith.

Answer 10

Weak atheists are not asserting anything, so they have no burden of proof. Strong atheists, on the other hand, are making an assertion (even though it is negative), and do have the burden of proof. That also applies to strong atheists who insist that the existence of God is impossible.