the burden of atheism

I keep running into the same line here from the “atheist” crowd. I need a bit of clarification as to what atheism is.
I view it as a point of view just like any other. Resting on some foundation and built up by reason.
In order to hold any point of view coherently, I’ve always thought it to be necessary to defend it and explain it properly so that others can understand. I mean, if you’ve got the Truth, don’t hold out on us, tell everyone how you got there. Give us your conclusive evidence that there’s no God.
You can’t just say, “the arguments that I encounter set fourth by theists are bad arguments, so atheism is correct.”. I hope that everyone recognizes this flaw of reasoning. Attacking and defeating a straw man proves nothing. Atheism has something to prove.
If you’re going to have a standard of evidence in an arguement that you’re going to hold a theist to, then you must also hold your reasoning to that same standard of evidence in the name of objectivity, balance and general truth-seeking fairness.

Explain to me how atheism proves that there is no God with better reasoning that theism explains that there is one.

If you say, “I’m an atheist”, then you have the burden of proof. Prove there’s not a God.

Atheism is not “built” from anything… it’s not “built” at all… It’s a void!

There’s nothing there to defend… there is nothing to argue for… or against…

vey very few atheist would say that they could PROVE with 100% certainty that god does not exist… all atheists ever say is: “I know of no good reason to believe god exists.”… and if you don’t believe god exists… you are an atheist.

So then defend the void. What void? Make it simple for me, because right now I think God is everywhere.



You need to define “god”… because all you said is “[gibberish] is everywhere”… Atheism is defined in contrast to theism… hence the A-theism… a LACK of theism…

Before you can say anything is A-moral… you need to define what “moral” is…

I am an atheist when “theism” is a belief in a personal being that is all powerful.

I am not an atheist if “theism” is a belief in the universe… which yes, I agree is evewhere…

While it isn’t a “proof” in any rigorous sense of the word, I think that organic holism and dynamic vitalism are the two foundational aspects that I base my present atheism off of. Here is a short description by Mary Evelyn Tucker of these two ideas:

I think tackling these issues in the reverse order that they were introduced makes sense. First, dynamic vitalism ultimately boils down to process philosophy whereby everything is in a constant state of flux: being exists only insofar as it is engaged in the process of becoming. Now, Whitehead’s system leads directly to process theology because if everything is in a state of flux, what is it that remains or gives us a sense of continuity? However, I think that organic holism provides a better means whereby the illusion of concreteness can be maintained as well as explained. Since everything ends up being connected to everything else through cause-and-effect relationships, reality maintains itself in a hermeneutic circle that can only be closed by the inclusion of the progress of time (so it ends up looking more like a spring, conceptually).

To me, placing God in this system introduces an “other” entity that remains outside of the organic holism and dynamic vitalism – the very notion of an “unmoved mover” is nihilistic.

God is everything in the universe that we can feel, but that we can’t explain. He is immeasurable. He appears to our minds in a way that’s unique to him and he exists outside the limits of our understanding.

Smears, prove that a green-eyed Martian isn’t writing your posts with his tentacles.


I know of no one thing that is all which you have described…

It’s already proven, to me. Just like you can’t prove God, nor his abscence to another person, you’ll have to come and check me out while I’m posting for yourself.

Theism and atheism are both matters of faith. Faith is a product of personal experience.

and any experience which cannot be shared is subjective… thus god cannot be said to be objectivly true…unless you can share the experience…

No, prove it to me. That you aren’t actually a Martian, or inhabited by a martian.


46000 people a day share the experience w/ Joel Osteen. And besides that, nothing is purely subjective or objective, everything requires both properties if anything is to have meaning.

To what standard of evidence? If you think that science is the way of truth, then you have to fix the problem that all natural sciences abide by physical laws which are at their base largley speculative. Just like religion.

What if the results of the medical test are influenced by the martians? What if I go and look at him and he’s got a Martian cloaking device on that makes him look human?


Well I don’t share their experience… So god does not exist for me… and if god does not exist for me… than god does not exist for everyone… and if god does not exist for everyone than the existence of god can not be said to be independently true… objective things must be independently true… that’s what sets them apart from subjective things…

Perhaps an atheist is only an atheist in relation to a theist. In relation to herself, an atheist is a humanist or materialist or some other kind of
“ist” in relation to a positive belief system. What do y’all think?