Argument # 29:  “Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They are simply without a belief in God. Therefore the burden of proof for God is on the Theist, not the Atheist.”

 

This is a technicality that Atheists use to try to put the burden on the other side. They claim that since “A-theism” means “without a belief in God”, they are not claiming anything and therefore do not have to prove anything. Thus, they claim, the burden of proof is on the Theist, who claims that God exists.

 

However, this makes little difference either way because their core philosophy toward God is still the same. Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it. The reason why they emphasize this is to try to put themselves in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, they will say “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”, but sometimes they slip up.

 

They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative.  Regardless, the Atheist obviously believes deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in their attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God.  Therefore this trivial debate about the implications of the word “Atheism” seems pointless in substance.

 

For some critiques of Atheist arguments, see these links:

 

"How to respond to a Supercilious Atheist":  http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/how_to_respond_to_a_supercilio.html

"The Irrational Atheists", has a free ebook you can download:  http://www.irrationalatheist.com

Previous Page                      Back to Table of Contents                        Next Page