The Stupid! It Burns! (burden of proof edition)

Unveiling Atheism

Mohamed Ghilan tells us that John Stewart Mill argued that "In circumstances in which the great majority hold a belief of any kind, what the dissenting voice must do is bring forth their case and prove it." Ghilan concludes, therefore, "The proposition that the believer must provide evidence for God, and until then we should remain either atheists or agnostic is problematic when we have had, since the beginning of history records, humans having engaged in some form of religious rituals and having acknowledged the existence of God."

Sigh. I so hate to belabor the obvious.

The atheist program is precisely to bring forth our case and prove it. One element of our case is that the existence of God, when considered as a neutral proposition, outside its social context, is a positive assertion that demands the burden of proof.

Furthermore, atheists really don't much care about the purely private beliefs of others; what we do care about is the positive religious assault on science, law, and secularism. The religious themselves are dissenting to the beliefs of a great majority, and we demand their burden of proof. God wants us to subjugate women, oppress and marginalize gays, keep the races separate? All these positions, at least in the United States, dissent from beliefs that are if not in the great majority at least widely held.

When it comes to the issue of evidence, it seems to be a word that is used in an unrestricted fashion by atheists to support their final conclusions. If anything, this reflects either a simpleton mind, or an ulterior motive driving atheists. The broad term “evidence” is defined as a body of information that points towards the validity of a claim. However, because there are several types of evidence, we cannot simply make the broad request of anyone to provide “evidence”. Depending on the matter at hand, we must define the type of evidence we need in order to be convinced. At the very least, we should qualify whether we want direct evidence, or can be persuaded by indirect evidence if it is strong enough.

The sentences are grammatically correct, but there's no actual meaning there.

Can any evidence, irrespective of type, be sufficient to prove that God exists? It would seem that from the atheist perspective the answer to this question is a simple “No”. Regardless of what type of evidence they are provided with, atheists will always have some response to it, which can be frustrating to the believer as they list all the reasons why a belief in God is actually the more rational position to hold. The problem is not with the evidence from an empirical sense. The problem is with the rationalization process that comes after being presented with the evidence, which leads us into a discussion about the nature of knowledge, which we can address elsewhere. [emphasis added]

Ah. "Elsewhere." Short for, I think, nowhere.

Evidence must be examined. That's why we have two advocates at a trial. If you think your evidence is being unfairly dismissed, you should provide evidence for such a claim.

The interesting question for the science-worshipping atheist to answer is whether it is about the belief in God, or the consequences of believing in God that are a problem. In other words, is it a matter of acknowledging God’s existence, or a matter of acknowledging what it means to their life after acknowledging God’s existence?

It's the former.

Moreover, what these science-worshipping atheists failed to recognize is that in their rejection of God, they have taken their own egos to be gods and became autodeists. Now they are organizing to form their own brand of religion full of moral theory and even practices, which they began to call people to so they can be “saved”. How ironic?

Yeah.