Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Burden of Proof: Theists of SW, do you believe that an atheist has a burden of proof when it comes to their lack of belief in a god [Spirituality & Religion]

or their rejection of the claim that a god exists?

If you say no, then i agree. If you say yes, then let's discuss.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Easygoing1 · 61-69, M
@Easygoing1

Ok. Why do you think that?
Easygoing1 · 61-69, M
Why shouldn't they . It easier just to say something doesn't exist than to prove it doesn't..
@Easygoing1

Well yes, that is easier to say.

[quote]Why shouldn't they[quote][/quote][/quote]


Because an atheist is not necessarily making a claim about the existence of god.
A theist, on the other hand, asserts that there is a god.
The default position is that you do not accept a claim as true until such time as that claim has been substantiated. That goes for god and bigfoot and loch ness monsters.

An atheist simply is not convinced by the claim that a god exists.
So why should they have a burden of proof? Why should they need to prove that a god does not exist in order to be unconvinced by the claim that one does?
Easygoing1 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu I do not believe they should have to prove God exist . I think if they are going to challenge God doesn't exist they should prove it doesn't. It's just like Bigfoot. Prove he doesn't exist.
@Easygoing1

Why do you believe that?

Do you believe that the person making a claim should prove that claim to be true or do you believe that everyone else has to prove that claim is wrong before they are justified in not believing it?


Here, maybe it would help to think of it in terms of a court trial.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
It is not the defense's task to prove that their client is innocent but to show that the prosecution has not met their burden of proof.
That is to say, a court does not show that a defendant is innocent, they only show whether or not the prosecution has proved that the defendant is guilty.


In the same way, the atheist does not have to prove that a god doesn't exist, or if you like, that a god is innocent of existing. The theist must prove that a god does exist (or is guilty of existing).
daisymay · 51-55, T
@Easygoing1 You don't prove a negative. Bad debater. No cookie.
Easygoing1 · 61-69, M
@daisymay I agree atheist are negatives.
daisymay · 51-55, T
@Easygoing1 Going for the insults early? Sweet. Now, in a real debate, the burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim, i.e. "God is real."

Care to prove it here for us?
Easygoing1 · 61-69, M
I love watching people become frustrated. I just jab at about anything .lol
@Easygoing1

Sorry. It seems like in the absence of an argument you've fallen back on trolling.

Is this the case or are you intending to carry on this discussion?
daisymay · 51-55, T
@Easygoing1 Surprise. You've got no substance, only bullshit.
@daisymay

Yeah...that one turned from discussion to trolling awfully quickly, didn't it?