The Atheist's burden of proof
It is commonly argued within theist-atheist debates that the burden of proof remains entirely with the theist. The theist has to provide evidence for God in order to be rational, but the atheist does not have any burden of proof because they are not making a positive claim.
Most atheists endorse that "it is true that God does not exist". And they continue to state things like "there is no evidence that God exists". If this is the case, why can't the theist reasonably argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence"? The atheist fails to realize that they too must provide evidence for God's nonexistence if that is a claim that they make. They argue their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is an extremely inaccurate position. Even within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence. Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions.
So why do scientific papers defend negative claims and feel the need to present evidence to support their negative hypotheses or conclusions? It is because a negative claim is really an affirmative claim that asserts the nonexistence of something. This positive-negative dichotomy when it comes to claims become meaningless. All claims are asserting something and thus require justification.
Given this, one can see that the theist can argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence", and the atheist would need to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. The atheist can not reasonably argue, "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence". The theist could reply, "It is not rational to believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence for God's nonexistence". I encourage theists to reply in such a way.
Now several atheists came to this realization that they are unable to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. So they make false propositions such as stating that they do not have a burden of proof in their claims, or they assert that they simply "lack" a belief in God and make no claims about God. They don't assert that God doesn't exist, but they instead just say they don't have belief in God. The theist could also reverse the argument as well. The theist could reply that they simply "lack" the belief in the nonexistence of God. These arguments are relatively equivalent. Remember, a negative statement is just the colloquialism for a positive statement that affirms the nonexistence of something. The reason we talk about reversing the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.
It should be noted that most atheists who "lack" a belief in God become very hypocritical and continue to make affirmative claims relative to God. They continue to state that God does not exist, and only assert that they only lack a belief in God when it becomes convenient. When they actually have to provide a burden of proof, they shy away and state that they are not making any claims about God. This is not a reasonable approach that demonstrates intellectual honesty. The atheist's who follow this type of discourse are simply intellectually dishonest and there is no way to reason with these types of people.
Another defense mechanism that atheists use to avoid their burden of proof, is to assert they are agnostic atheists. They don't know if God exists, but they lack the belief in God. They endorse atheism, but don't deny theism. This is trivial and meaningless. If they make any claims about God, those require evidence. It doesn't matter what their beliefs are. All that matters are the claims they make. Yes it is true that an agnostic atheist who makes no claims do not require a burden of proof. But how often have you encountered an atheist that doesn't make any claims or not hold any positive or negative beliefs about God? I have not ever encountered such a person. Atheists simply use these defense mechanism to avoid their burden of proof, likely because they do not have any evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence. They lack tangible evidence that supports holding the nonexistence of God.
Imagine scientists endorse these defense mechanisms that atheists use. Imagine scientists assert that their negative theories, statements and conclusion do not need supporting evidence because their claims are negative, or that they simply "lack a belief in the opposing conclusion" and thus they don't need to present evidence for their theories. Just imagine how much progress science would make if it uses the defense mechanisms that atheist's present. There is a reason why the peer-reviewed scientific literature requires the use of supporting evidence to substantiate negative claims. The atheist's failure to recognize this needs to be exposed so that we encourage proper, effective discussion and debate.
Most atheists endorse that "it is true that God does not exist". And they continue to state things like "there is no evidence that God exists". If this is the case, why can't the theist reasonably argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence"? The atheist fails to realize that they too must provide evidence for God's nonexistence if that is a claim that they make. They argue their claim is negative, and negative claims require no justification. This is an extremely inaccurate position. Even within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, negative claims are studied, analyzed and evaluated. Several scientific studies reach negative conclusions and they justify such using evidence. Many scientific papers are published solely to provide evidence for a negative conclusion that is against previously held conclusions and theories. If an atheist argues that negative claims require no justification, then they are in disagreement with much of the peer-reviewed academic literature who all require evidence to substantiate negative conclusions.
So why do scientific papers defend negative claims and feel the need to present evidence to support their negative hypotheses or conclusions? It is because a negative claim is really an affirmative claim that asserts the nonexistence of something. This positive-negative dichotomy when it comes to claims become meaningless. All claims are asserting something and thus require justification.
Given this, one can see that the theist can argue that "there is no evidence for God's nonexistence", and the atheist would need to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. The atheist can not reasonably argue, "It is not rational to believe that God does exist, because there is no evidence for God's existence". The theist could reply, "It is not rational to believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence for God's nonexistence". I encourage theists to reply in such a way.
Now several atheists came to this realization that they are unable to provide evidence for God's nonexistence. So they make false propositions such as stating that they do not have a burden of proof in their claims, or they assert that they simply "lack" a belief in God and make no claims about God. They don't assert that God doesn't exist, but they instead just say they don't have belief in God. The theist could also reverse the argument as well. The theist could reply that they simply "lack" the belief in the nonexistence of God. These arguments are relatively equivalent. Remember, a negative statement is just the colloquialism for a positive statement that affirms the nonexistence of something. The reason we talk about reversing the argument against the atheist is not to frustrate them or discourage intellectual debate, but to show the atheist the deficiencies in their reasoning skills.
It should be noted that most atheists who "lack" a belief in God become very hypocritical and continue to make affirmative claims relative to God. They continue to state that God does not exist, and only assert that they only lack a belief in God when it becomes convenient. When they actually have to provide a burden of proof, they shy away and state that they are not making any claims about God. This is not a reasonable approach that demonstrates intellectual honesty. The atheist's who follow this type of discourse are simply intellectually dishonest and there is no way to reason with these types of people.
Another defense mechanism that atheists use to avoid their burden of proof, is to assert they are agnostic atheists. They don't know if God exists, but they lack the belief in God. They endorse atheism, but don't deny theism. This is trivial and meaningless. If they make any claims about God, those require evidence. It doesn't matter what their beliefs are. All that matters are the claims they make. Yes it is true that an agnostic atheist who makes no claims do not require a burden of proof. But how often have you encountered an atheist that doesn't make any claims or not hold any positive or negative beliefs about God? I have not ever encountered such a person. Atheists simply use these defense mechanism to avoid their burden of proof, likely because they do not have any evidence to substantiate God's nonexistence. They lack tangible evidence that supports holding the nonexistence of God.
Imagine scientists endorse these defense mechanisms that atheists use. Imagine scientists assert that their negative theories, statements and conclusion do not need supporting evidence because their claims are negative, or that they simply "lack a belief in the opposing conclusion" and thus they don't need to present evidence for their theories. Just imagine how much progress science would make if it uses the defense mechanisms that atheist's present. There is a reason why the peer-reviewed scientific literature requires the use of supporting evidence to substantiate negative claims. The atheist's failure to recognize this needs to be exposed so that we encourage proper, effective discussion and debate.
