NOTE: This was written by IrishFamer and originally posted on Atheism is Dead (True Freethinker‘s predesesor).
Atheists love to claim that their position is negative, that they have nothing to prove, and that theists alone shoulder the burden of proof. Here’s why they’re wrong.
Atheists, despite their often self-proclaimed intellectual superiority to their closed-minded and ignorant theistic counterparts, will employ any number of ‘dishonest’ tricks in defense of their worldview. Perhaps the most worn-out example of these tricks is the idea that atheists have zero burden of proof. Atheists are convinced that they simply need to tear down any theist’s attempt to prove God, and their worldview remains true by default.
On the surface, this is a great tactic. Especially since it’s usually coupled with the tactic of simply providing naturalistic explanations of all things theistic, no matter how improbable or ridiculous that naturalistic explanation is, and then declaring victory.
However, it simply doesn’t work. Atheism may not be a worldview, per se, however it is at least the end result of a number of worldviews which necessarily preclude God. Obviously, if you hold to the assumptions inherent in these worldviews, you shouldn’t expect to change your mind anytime soon without some pretty convincing reasoning to dismantle the foundations of your beliefs.
The problem is, atheists confuse their assumptions with common sense. Of course, their assumptions are common sense to them, otherwise they wouldn’t hold to assumptions like metaphysical naturalism. However, their assumptions aren’t true by default as they seem to think.
Further complicating the issue is that it simply is NOT true that one cannot disprove God. If God is logically contradictory, then by necessity He does not exist – for example.
Atheists might claim that disproving God is like disproving the existence of an invisible pink (if it’s invisible, how is it pink?) unicorn. Another good example would be the FSM. The problem with these claims – actually there are many problems – is one of apples to oranges. These creatures are distinct from God in one important way: contingency. God is not contingent on, or part of the universe, which cannot be said of these creatures. This means that the kind of things we would look for in proving their existence of much different than that of God.
However, even if you really cannot disprove the existence of God the atheist still has some things to account for. All atheists – at least the ones who have fully come to grips with and understood their beliefs – have an underlying worldview which is NOT true by default and without which their atheism has no foundation. One good example is metaphysical naturalism, or perhaps more common these days is scientism. These beliefs are not self-evident, they are pre-scientific, philosophical assumptions which can stand or fall just as easily as theistic assumptions based on criticism. I challenge any atheist to demonstrate how the existence of God is more unlikely than likely, without relying on these unproven assumptions.
If atheists want to be taken seriously, I think its time they take the training wheels off, admit that they have just as much to prove as theists, and work on carrying the burden of proof inherent in their worldviews. Of course, I’m not speaking of all atheists. Richard Carrier, for one, has spent much time outlining and defending his naturalistic worldview upon which his atheism is founded.
However, there is no excuse for the lay-atheist who continual claims that they have nothing to prove because the entire burden of proof is on their theistic counterparts.