Why I am an Atheist: The Burden of Proof

You know something? I am getting real fucking tired of theists pushing the burden of proof onto atheists. It seems to me that a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means is at the crux of this issue, and I am going to do my best to explain why the burden of proving gods existence lies exclusively on theists, and why atheists have no burden of proof.

 

If you aren't familiar with the term, the "burden of proof" essentially states that in order to have a definite position on any issue, you must provide proof for that position. The burden of proof is essential in any argument where there are opposing viewpoints up for debate- most importantly when the claim made is extraordinary.

This works for any argument. For example, if I were to claim that my cat can talk, and you doubt my claim, it is my responsibility to prove to you that my cat can talk. Because it is an extraordinary claim, your doubt in my cat ability to talk becomes the default position. Evidence and experience tell you that cats are not capable of speech, and you have no reason to believe otherwise regardless of my claims until proof is provided. Logically, it makes the most sense to doubt such an extraordinary claim, and therefore, not blindly believing my claim that my cat can talk is the default position.
On the flip side, if I am able to provide legitimate proof of my cat actually talking- something like having a conversation with my cat about how much it sucks to be a prisoner in a studio apartment 24/7 while we are all hanging out- my claim has weight. If, over the course of several meetings, my cat never shuts the fuck up around anyone ever, you have been proven wrong because I provided the necessary, repeatable evidence which proves my claim. However, this does not prove that all cats are capable of holding conversations, only that my cat is capable of such bizarre yet awesome things.

At this point, yet again, the burden of proof lies on me to prove that not only my cat is capable of speech, but that all cats are capable of speech.

Statement	Burden of Proof
My cat can talk! She can hold conversations and everything!	-----------------------------------
My cat asked me to fill her food bowl, literally!	----------------------------
My cat sounds like shes asks me "why" all the time, its hilarious.	--------------------
I don't know whether or not my cat can talk.
It's possible that my cat doesn't talk.	--
Most likely, my cat doesn't talk.	----
My cat can't talk.	------

Just swap "my cat can/t talk" with "god (doesn't) exist/s"

This is exactly why I choose to be an atheist. When a theist claims gods existence, it is a positive argument and an extraordinary claim. The theist, by making this claim also claims to knowledge of gods existence. Because the concept of a supernatural presence is extraordinary, the default position becomes disbelief until proven otherwise.

An atheistic position holds strong because (and this is very, very important) atheism makes no positive claims to knowledge. An atheist does not claim to "know" that god doesn't exist, we simply don't know whether or not a god or gods exist. Until there is testable, repeatable proof to the contrary, we have no reason to believe the positive claim of gods existence, regardless of your convictions.

A strong belief, a visceral feeling or constant hope is not testable, repeatable proof of anything. These things matter, but they prove nothing. Nothing claimed by anyone relating to the existence of the supernatural is testable or proven. Therefore, the burden of proving gods existence (or any other similarly extraordinary claim) lies on the shoulders of the theist, the one who claims positive knowledge. The default, neutral position is one of disbelief..

The real beauty in atheism is that it is fluid. Prove me wrong. Show me the evidence. When that happens, my opinion will have necessarily changed- this is why atheism, in my humble opinion, makes the most sense.

I can't explain it any clearer. The shitty part about all this is that most theists mistake belief for knowledge. Trying to make a differentiation is extremely difficult, and I am sure my explanation isn't the best one, but it's my best effort. I hope this has shed some light on why I am a non-believer, and (for some of you out there) might make us atheists less frightening.

The graph on this page was taken and modified from the wikipedia entry for philosophic burden of proof.