← Back to Feed
Author

For people who haven’t seen my video from long ago…

5 years ago • April 21, 2021 • by ourCOG

*Atheist HAVE a Burden of Proof. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.*

Don’t allow atheists in debates to say they do not have a BoP. It is epistemologically unsound and untenable for an atheist to claim they have a rational position, but unjustified. A Burden of Proof in epistemology is known as a Burden of Justification. Justification is what makes one’s beliefs or positions rational. Atheists who retreat to weak atheism (merely lacking a belief) still have a BoP as why they failed to accept or reject the claim being submitted to them.

Any atheist who claims they have no Burden of Proof is merely parroting atheist activist groups who have been dishonestly trying to shirk their burdens by telling atheists prescriptively that they do not have one. Next time an atheist tries that, have them try to cite any academic or epistemological standing that allows them to hold a any position (even if mere non-acceptance) as rational with out a burden of proof (justification).

See my blog for more detail on the subject:
[https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2017/11/12/atheists-and-the-burden-of-proof/](https://greatdebatecommunity.com/2017/11/12/atheists-and-the-burden-of-proof/)

For people who haven’t seen my video from long ago on burden of proof, scientific consensus and why the burden of proof for science is not the same as an epistemic burden of justification (or…

Categories: #ourCOG

Discussion

18 comments

  1. Jelaya Stewart says:
    April 29, 2020 at 10:31 am

    What’s your position are you an atheist agnostic an theist?

    Reply
  2. James Goyen says:
    April 29, 2020 at 10:42 am

    An atheist will have a burden of proof if they make a positive claim.

    Reply
  3. Tom Gus Tavi says:
    April 29, 2020 at 10:54 am

    Would there be a burden of proof for not believing in unicorns or leprechauns?

    Reply
  4. Tom Gus Tavi says:
    April 29, 2020 at 11:03 am

    “I don’t believe you” implies you believe that person has not made a convincing enough argument for you to believe them”
    I think this quote demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the human mind works. One doesn’t decide that they are convinced. They merely are or they aren’t. An argument will either convince you or it won’t and if you aren’t convinced by an argument then the proof is simply that you have not been convinced. There is no need to prove that the argument isn’t convincing, it’s just that it did not do the trick of convincing.

    Reply
  5. Andy Witherall says:
    April 29, 2020 at 12:09 pm

    Equating God with unicorns or leprechauns is a popular, but disengenuous, tactic. The questions over whether there is a divine mind, whether materialism or idealism is a more accurate view of reality, whether our subjective experiences of morality, purpose etc relate to an objective reality, are all valid questions and all have strong implications for the possibility of God. The atheist is making a positive claim about all of these questions, and they need to be able to justify their position like everyone else rather than just claiming to be the default option.

    Reply
  6. Tom Gus Tavi says:
    April 29, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    I like how you assumed I was equating God with leprechauns. I wasn’t. I was simply trying to see if you are willing to apply your logic equally to different claims. It just seems you are making special pleading for the God claim by saying different standards of logic apply to different claims. Why does God get a special category where his disbelief requires a burden of proof, but any other claim’s disbelief does not. Are there any non-God claims you are aware of for whose disbelief requires a burden of proof?

    Reply
  7. Jerry Spencer says:
    April 29, 2020 at 12:23 pm

    Both theists and atheists agree there is a universe.

    Theists would give an explanation for why this universe exists.

    This explanation (God) is something more than what is observed.

    If some evidence is not provided, there is no justification to simply accept it.

    Reply
  8. Peter Richichi says:
    April 29, 2020 at 1:34 pm

    Your argument is fanciful, not unlike the Trinity, but in both cases they are just wrong. Socrates is rolling over in his grave.

    Reply
  9. Christine Farrar says:
    April 29, 2020 at 1:55 pm

    For my atheist friends – https://youtu.be/4uIvOniW8xA

    Reply
  10. Joe Losiak says:
    April 29, 2020 at 2:11 pm

    Their evidence disappeared when God spoke

    Reply
  11. Lawrence Apitz says:
    April 29, 2020 at 2:23 pm

    to try to deny God means you are aware of him or else why try to deny him.

    Reply
  12. Francine Winters says:
    April 29, 2020 at 3:09 pm

    Atheists drive me bananas. They think they’re smarter, more rational and more logical. They believe this by endlessly repeating how logical and rational they are, and if they keep saying it, it’s true.

    God doesn’t force anyone to interact with him.

    Reply
  13. Andriana Rabanal says:
    April 29, 2020 at 3:52 pm

    We must not forget that Atheists are blinded just as much as we were before we came to Christ. We need to lovingly,full of grace and prayerfully share with them scriptures and pointing them to the gospel. As Christians , we should not speak badly against one type of belief. Yes we should hate anything against the Lord but not the individual person. Instead we should be yearning for their souls to be saved and pray we will be ready to answer anyone! Bless you all!

    Reply
  14. Barry Desborough says:
    April 29, 2020 at 4:05 pm

    https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/russells-celestial-eapot.html
    From “Is there a God?” by Bertrand Russell,

    “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

    If I were to say to you that your opinion, that the Teapot doesn’t exist, is in fact a belief, and that the onus is on you to justify that belief, would you think I was nuts?

    Reply
  15. Daniel Feher says:
    April 29, 2020 at 4:15 pm

    No matter how you look at it there is not even one piece of evidence which proves that the God of the bible is real.

    Reply
  16. Kihoshe Assumi says:
    April 29, 2020 at 7:12 pm

    The atheists denied their own existence by denying the existence of God.

    Reply
  17. Lawrence Apitz says:
    April 29, 2020 at 9:00 pm

    what do you want a photograph, the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handwork day after day utters speech and night after night reveals knowledge.

    Reply
  18. Uriah Christensen says:
    May 3, 2020 at 2:09 pm

    What does one expect from a nonexistent God? That’s right! Specious arguments, no empirical demonstration of the entity, and a millennia or more of people debating its existence.

    Don’t you think it is a bit odd that the world matches what is expected given a nonexistent God? This is more than enough to say that there is not an elephant in your bedroom: Why would it not be enough to say God does not exist in the world? Instead of “The problem of divine hiddenness,” look at it as “The problem of the missing elephant.” Do you need an argument?

    1. If God does exists, then arguments are not specious, one can empirically demonstrate the entity, and people are not debating its existence
    2. It is not the case that arguments are not specious, one can empirically demonstrate the entity, and people are not debating its existence
    3. Therefore, God does not exist.

    The “you can’t prove a negative” rhetoric is a falsehood.

    Reply

Related Posts

How to explain someone they Mary is Mother of God?

August 7, 2022

Theological Renewal (1975 1983) Listening To An Editors Agenda For Church And Academy

July 28, 2026