Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[Jarsa]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right? If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic.  A positive claim is assumed to be false until proven otherwise, so that provides some justification for saying no. But if they were asked "Does the multiverse exist?" they would probably say "I don't know".

What is the difference between the two questions, and why don't we assume the multiverse doesn't exist?

[Minimalist]

I won't claim to speak for all atheists....I leave that sort of thing to the xhristards... but my answer is that there is no evidence for any of the gods ever concocted by the minds of men.

If you find some, please share it with us.

[SYZ]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right? If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic...

Well, not quite correct.  Yes, of course atheists would say
"no" in response, but that's just forcing the question.

I'm an ignostic, so if you were to ask me that question
I'd consider it an absurdity and not worth my responding
to in any way.

Anyway, your question "Why exactly does Atheism not have
burden of proof?" is easy to answer.   Atheism makes no
claims—it's simply a personal state of mind.  QED.

[Paleophyte]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right?

Nope. "I don't know.", "I don't believe you.", and "What are you spluttering about?" are just a few of the many equally valid responses.

If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic.

And possibly an agnostic atheist. You can get the same answer from an agnostic theist. [A]gnosticism describes what you know. [A]theism describes what you believe.



Agnostic is also colloquially used to refer to nonbelievers who aren't "strong" atheists, but that isn't terribly useful. The whole "weak"/"strong" distinction is entirely context dependent. For example, I'm a weak/agnostic atheist with respect to a deistic god but a strong/gnostic atheist with respect to a biblically literal god. I can't entirely disprove the former, but the latter is an incoherent jumble of Bronze Age myths stewed in a Roman mystery cult that nobody with a working mind would give a second's thought to if it weren't embedded in tradition.

A positive claim is assumed to be false until proven otherwise, so that provides some justification for saying no.

Strictly speaking, the burden of proof for any claim rests on the person making the claim, regardless of whether it's positive. So regardless of which flavour of heathen you may happen to be the BoP still falls upon the theist making the claim. The same is true for theists. Tell them that the end is nigh and Huitzilopochtli is coming for their souls and they'll point and laugh. And quite rightly so. Funny how they stop laughing when you change the name in that statement.

But if they were asked "Does the multiverse exist?" they would probably say "I don't know".

What is the difference between the two questions, and why don't we assume the multiverse doesn't exist?

We have some notion of what a multiverse might be, some faint hints that there might be one, and nobody's going to beat you bloody for worshipping it the wrong way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right? If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic.  

I'd answer, "I don't know, but I don't believe." You're welcome to convince me, but your claim doesn't have first grant on what is true.

For clarity, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't claim gods don't exist. I don't see any evidence, so I don't believe. You need to understand the difference between knowledge and belief.

[c172]

Prove it to me that your god exists, otherwise I am unable to believe. I'm not going to try to prove to you there is no god. I don't like getting into unneccessary arguments, especially with those that require the last word. I just have no reason to believe your god exists, or is of any worth.

[Rhythmcs]

What is the difference between the two questions, and why don't we assume the multiverse doesn't exist?

Fairly simple.  I don't know enough about the universe to confidently say whether or not the multiverse exists.  I do know enough about the universe to confidently say that gods don't.

Agnostic amultiversist. Gnostic atheist.

[Alan V]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right? If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic.  A positive claim is assumed to be false until proven otherwise, so that provides some justification for saying no.

The range of responses above covers a lot of useful information.  So I would just add that strong atheists who say, "I know that no God exists" may not only accept the burden of proof but be able to offer their arguments in some detail.  It's complicated, so they would need to cover a lot of ground.

[Mathilda]

Some atheists don't have a belief in God's existence. Other atheists believe that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is only on the latter.

[Dexta]

Why does Aleprechaunism not have a burden of proof?

[Deesse23]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right?
No, the base line is " I don't believe a god exists". This does not have a burden of proof.

I believe x does not exist is a claim and needs evidence.
I don't believe x exists is the rejection of someone else's claim and needs no evidence.

[Dexta]

Some atheists don't have a belief in God's existence. Other atheists believe that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is only on the latter.

I disagree - an atheist that thinks god(s) does not exist has no more burden of proof than somebody that thinks unicorns or Russel's teapot do not exist.

[Dexta]

It's only because of prevalent extant theological beliefs (eg, Christianity) that these waters sometimes seem muddy - if I said I don't believe in the existence of Poseidon nobody would say the burden of proof lies with me.

[Mathilda]

Fair points.

[Dexta]

I messed up the wording though lolz

 if I said I don't believe in the existence of Poseidon nobody would say the burden of proof lies with me.

Should have been; "if I said I believe Poseidon does not exist nobody would say the burden of proof lies with me."

muddy, muddy waters indeed

[Deesse23]

Some atheists don't have a belief in God's existence. Other atheists believe that God does not exist.

The burden of proof is only on the latter.

I disagree - an atheist that thinks god(s) does not exist has no more burden of proof than somebody that thinks unicorns or Russel's teapot do not exist.

You missed mathildas point entirely

[Dexta]

How so? I suppose there's also a difference between "I believe" and "I know." I guess I'd personally lean toward "I know nothing (with 100% certainty)" although to live that way might at least APPEAR to be wishy washy on a par with Fairy liquid.

[Deesse23]

You responded as if Mathilda pointed out burden of proof depends on WHAT KIND OF CLAIM YOU MAKE. My point, and mathildas point, is: agnostic atheism dies not make any claims.pleae re-read my original response and tell me: do you understand the difference between " x does not exist!" and " I don't believe x exists"?

Do you??????

[Deesse23]

How so? I suppose there's also a difference between "I believe" and "I know." I guess I'd personally lean toward "I know nothing (with 100% certainty)" although to live that way might at least APPEAR to be wishy washy on a par with Fairy liquid.

You also maybe have a misconception about belief and knowledge. The difference is not related to confidence, like many, particularly religious people assume, but about the ability to demonstrate to others. Even then, 100% is not a relevant criterion.

[brewerb]

The multiverse exists as a concept only, the same as any god (and unicorns, fairies, superman,...). I am in the 'I don't believe the multiverse exists' category.

[Minimalist]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right?
No, the base line is " I don't believe a god exists". This does not have a burden of proof.

I believe x does not exist is a claim and needs evidence.
I don't believe x exists is the rejection of someone else's claim and needs no evidence.

"Lack of evidence" is also evidence...with the proviso that it can be overturned by the discovery of evidence.

Provided such "evidence" survives scrutiny.


So far, it never has.

[Jarsa]

I messed up the wording though lolz

 if I said I don't believe in the existence of Poseidon nobody would say the burden of proof lies with me.

Should have been; "if I said I believe Poseidon does not exist nobody would say the burden of proof lies with me."

muddy, muddy waters indeed

I guess the existence of Poseidon is a clearer belief to start with.  If you believe that Poseidon does not exist, your response to the question "Does Posedion exist?" would be no, not "I don't know" or "What are you spluttering about?"

But there is a difference between not believing and believing that Poseidon does not exist.

But with the multiverse, if you said a definite no to "Does the multiverse exist", people would expect some evidence to back your response.

What is the difference? In both cases, you are replying with a definite no to the question, but in one case you don't have the burden of proof.

[Antonio]

Defiine your god then I'll answer your question

[epronovost]

What is the difference? In both cases, you are replying with a definite no to the question, but in one case you don't have the burden of proof.

That's not entirely correct. If your answer is "no" than there is every possibility that your interlocutor will ask the very legitimate question "why" thus presenting you with a burden of proof as to why you say know. If you then answer "I haven't seen any convincing evidence of the veracity of such thing" or something to that effect, you have responded and carried that burden of proof. You presented a reasonable explanation as to why you don't believe such thing. Of course, then your interlocutor could again challenge your answer by asking for your evidenciary standards and see if your assessment is indeed intellectually honest or if it's actually a fig leaf to conceal a dogmatic position.

[Reltzik]

So an atheist is someone, who when asked "Does God exist?", would say no, right? If they said "I don't know", they would be agnostic.  A positive claim is assumed to be false until proven otherwise, so that provides some justification for saying no. But if they were asked "Does the multiverse exist?" they would probably say "I don't know".

What is the difference between the two questions, and why don't we assume the multiverse doesn't exist?

*SIGH*

Okay, there's two things going on here.

First, how to define the words "atheist" and "atheism".  English isn't a language with precise, authoritative definitions delivered from some official language ministry.  It's an impromptu kluge.  The closest thing we have to a rule as to what counts as a definition of a word is whatever is in common usage, and the only measure of a good definition is whatever works best for expressing and conveying meaning.

With that in mind, there are a handful of different definitions of the word "atheist" floating around in common usage.  The two at issue are the definition of an atheist as "someone who asserts that no god exists", versus "someone who does not believe that a god exists".  The difference lies in someone who is not convinced in the existence of a god, but who does not assert as fact that none exists.  This MIGHT be because they haven't ruled it out and think it's a live possibility, or it MIGHT be because they strongly lean against the idea but are the very cautious sort who won't take a certain stand against the idea without what they feel is 100% disproof, or it might be any number of other reasons.

I would argue that, of these two definitions, assuming "does not believe" is better than assuming "believes there isn't" for two reasons.  First, it covers both cases.  If someone who doesn't believe there's a god says they're an atheist, and you understand that to mean they believe there isn't a god, then you are now in error.  You now believe something false.  However, if someone who believes there isn't a god calls themselves an atheist, and you understand them to mean just that they don't believe there's a god, then what you took away from that isn't the entirety of what they meant, but is still correct, and what you believe about them is true.

The second reason is that the "do not believe" definition is more flexible for discussing these ideas.  When the word is used this way we often see modifiers attached to it that clarify these ambiguities.  For example, a "strong atheist" or "positive atheist" is someone who takes the bolder, stronger position of advancing a positive claim that no god exists, while a "weak atheist" or "negative atheist" is someone who is in the less-assertive position of not being convinced.  Similarly, a "gnostic atheist" is one who feels certitude that no god exists, whole an "agnostic atheist" either expresses a measure of openness to considering the alternative or certitude that the question is unknowable.  (The difference leads into questions of strong agnosticism vs weak agnosticism, which is a rabbit hole I won't go down here.)  Note that in this rubric "atheist" and "agnostic" are not mutually exclusive.

Normally I'm patient with people who don't understand this ambiguity, but the very first paragraph of this site's front page links to a blurb explaining all this, and as a newcomer it would have been wiser of you to look around a bit and get the lay of the land rather than diving in head-first without looking.

Please note that some of the most aggressive and obnoxious Christians, the ones most eager to abuse, slander, and attack us, prefer the "believes there isn't" definition out of rhetorical convenience and will train their flocks to think that is the "true" meaning, rather than just one of several meanings in common usage.  As a result we can get our hackles raised when confronted by someone who sounds a lot like that sort of Christian, simply out of anticipation of the sort of confrontation that's likely to follow.

So that's the first problem.

The second problem comes down to the definition of "burden of proof", and I think this doesn't get as much examination as it should.  My position (and I'm sure I'm a minority in parsing it this finely) is that there are two distinct concepts wrapped up together in that phrase and a lot of ambiguity arises from conflating those concepts.  I will refer to these two concepts as the "actual burden of proof" and "ideal burden of proof".

The actual burden of proof is how much proof (and what sort of proof) it will take to actually convince someone.  If my goal is to convince a Christian that there is no god, I've got some work to do.  I might think it's not fair that I should have to work so hard for it, but regardless of whether I think it's fair that I have to do it I won't succeed in my goal unless I do it.  Similarly, if you are trying to convince me of your beliefs, you have a burden to meet, regardless of whether you think that's fair or not.  It is what it is.  Notice here that the actual burden of proof does not fall on the atheist or the theist per se.  Instead, it falls on whoever tries to persuade people that something is the case.

The ideal burden of proof is a much less practical concept.  Instead of discussing what it will actually take to convince someone, it asks what it SHOULD take to convince someone.  What level of proof would convince a reasonable person that X is true?  What level of proof should NOT convince a reasonable person is true?  For example, atheists will often scoff at certain theistic arguments by lumping them under the phrase "look at the trees".  This is because someone has said something along the lines of "look at a tree, that tree can't possibly exist without a god, checkmate atheists".  We think that pointing out a tree falls laughably short of the ideal burden of proof, and the theist think it clears the ideal burden of proof.

Notice that this is an "ought" question rather than an "is" question, and those are very difficult to demonstrate as true or false.

Now, let's get back to your actual question.  You seem to be asking about ideal burdens of proof rather than actual burdens of proof.  Bearing in mind that atheism covers the "I'm not convinced of a god" position, this amounts to asking, "why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who is unconvinced?"  If you are instead referring specifically to strong atheism, the asserted position that no god exists, then there is a case to be made for saying that such a claim would ideally carry a burden of proof.  In exactly the same way, both someone asserting the existence of a multiverse and someone asserting the nonexistence of a multiverse could have an ideal burden of proof to meet, while someone reserving judgement on the question might not.

EDIT: Not a newcomer, my mistake.