Atheism Has No Burden of Proof

"blablabla, because. .. " is a claim; if no reasoning is to be provided afterward then it is no better than an opinion. However, notice that the claim that a proposition is false is still a claim; thus requires a burden of proof. Of course, inductive reasoning is a very significant source of knowledge, consequently we can't get absolute certainty about most things in the world (problem of induction), however it would be rational to predict an overwhelmingly likely possibility based on evidence; we predict that our food isn't poisoned, won't get a car crash going to work, our friends aren't conspiring to harm us, that our eyes produces accurate images, that our memory is accurate, that the sun isn't going to explode next week, etc. .. despite not having absolute proof, but rather evidence can be provided and inductive arguments can be constructed that suggests the predictions to be immensely more likely. Regarding the definition of Atheism, I find the broad/inclusive definition nonsensical. So we learn that they reject the belief that one or more deities exist, however, if anything, a more appropriate term would be "non-Theist" or "non-Deist". So what is their intellectual position and what do Atheism stand for? Do they also reject the notion that no deity exists, meaning that they believe they didn't do enough research to conclude whether a deity exists or not, or believe that it is impossible to validly conclude whether a deity exists or not? Lets take this example: Lets assume Mr. X's car can either be red or blue. I lack belief that Mr. X's car is red. So does this mean that I believe the car to be blue? Does this mean that I also lack belief that the car is blue, and I don't have the capability to know it's color? Does this mean that I also lack belief that the car is blue, and I don't know it's color yet? The point is: "Lack of belief" is not a conclusion or intellectual position, and while it narrows the possibilities it still addresses multiple intellectual positions. If you reject a position, you necessarily take an alternative position. The educated (excluding temporary ignorance) intellectual positions regarding the ontology of God are:1- Belief that God exists.2- Belief that God does not exist.3- Belief that it is unknowable whether God exists or not. As a Theist, I lack belief that God does not exist, but I believe that God exists, otherwise I'd go with the third option. You stated that Atheists should define Atheism. Fair point as long as the definition isn't changed on a whim or in the middle of the argument/debate (fallacy of equivocation). Now, based on the wiki definition Pro provided, I can see two possibilities:1) My opponent must defend the application of the resolution on "broad Atheism": "There are no dieties".2) My opponent must defend the application of the resolution on the collective positions within Non-Theism/a-theism, or as the definition states: "narrow/inclusive Atheism". I believe that it is quite unreasonable for Pro to take option #2, as he must defend the application of the resolution on countless non-Theist disciplines, some of which I gathered are, assuming Atheist=Non-Theist: - "Broad" Atheists: Disbelieve in all god(s). - "Narrow" Atheists: Disbelieve in certain god(s). - "Strong/Positive/Explict" Atheists: There is(are) no god(s). - "Weak/Negative/Implict" Atheists: Lack of belief in god(s) [Leading to other types of Atheism]. - "Gnostic" Atheists: It is certain that god(s) does(do) not exist. - "Strong Agnostic": It is impossible to know if god(s) exist or not. - "Weak Agnostic": It is not currently possible to know if god(s) exist or not, but maybe someday. - "Ignostic" Atheists: The term "God" is devoid of meaning. - "Pragmatic" Atheists: It is not important whether God exists or not. - "Deistic" Atheist: There is a higher power, but it doesn't do much. I am sure there are more, however if my opponent takes the less specific definition, he must defend the resolution for them all.2- Burden of ProofThe burden of proof for the assertion embodied in the resolution is carried by Pro, meaning that I am only obligated with a burden of rebuttal, in which I respond to my opponent's arguments and attempt to refute them. However, I am free to provide arguments and evidence for statements and antitheses that contradicts the debate's resolution. My opponent, must demonstrate that the set of beliefs and claims within the doctrine of Atheism (as defined by my opponent) are not under the intellectual obligation to have a burden of proof, or the obligation to justify the doctrine with reasons in the form of logic and evidence.3- RebuttalI shall address the points my opponent presented.3a- Theism and Atheism Address BeliefI agree on the self-evident statement. However, would this mean that the resolution is self-evidently false? Based on the definition provided for the philosophical burden of proof, parties are obligated to provide sufficent warrant to justify their intellectual position. I kindly ask my opponent to clarify the apparent contradiction with the debate's resolution.3b- Reality vs Belief about RealityI agree on the possibilities proposed by my opponent; the existence of truth is undeniable. However, how and whether we can make a sound conclusion that pinpoint that truth is the question.3c- The Two Prongs of a DilemmaI am not sure why my opponent uses court and legal burden of proof as an analogy when we are using a philosophical burden of proof for this debate,whether deities exists is a metaphysical question which warrants a philosophical burden of proof as specified at the beginning of my opponent's argument. . The legal burden of proof is generally carried by who goes against the consensus, this is generally has the same effect as the burden being carried by who makes the claim. Of course there are practical reasons for presuming innocence such as preventing tyranny. Is my opponent implying that there is no such thing as burden of rebuttal in court cases? The court system does not support the negation of a claim of innocence without any negating logic or evidence from the prosecution (or skeptic). When the party upon whom the burden of proof rests has made out a prima facie case, this will, in general, suffice to shift the burden. -Black's Law Dictionary (1)Rejecting the burden of rebuttal is equivalent to saying: "I don"t accept your evidence, and I don"t have to say why". This is an anti-intellectual and an irrational position.3d- Categorizing the PositionsThis ties in with the whole definition problem; where what you mean by "Atheist" isn't the classic "believe god doesn't exist", but instead Pro exchanges the definition with "Non-Theist", which includes Agnosticism and pretending that this is all there is to Non-Theism. It doesn't work that way. As explained above, temporary Agnosticism is simply an admittance of ignorance thus not an intellectual position, therefore an Agnostic is takes neither a Theist position nor any sort of Atheist position, unless the position is that it is impossible to get a conclusion regarding existence of deities.3e- Not Believing Proposition A =/= Believing proposition BAnd a person who does not believe that God does not exist is not the same as believing that God exist because he might also not believe that God exists. Therefore a non-Atheist (including Theists) have no burden of proof since they might be Agnostic and have no assertion or burden of proof? Unless the Agnosticism is based on temporarily ignorance rather than the belief of collective inability of humans to answer whether deities exists or not, it has burden of proof since it calls alternative Theists and Atheists positions irrational.3d- AgnosticismTsk tsk. An Agnostic (regarding ontology/existence) Atheist/Theist is simply a coverup using the theft of the position of Agnosticism and the false statement of: "I have no god theory", to cover for intellectual weakness. You either have valid reasons of logic or evidence for your belief, or you do not. You either can can justify your position, or you cannot. It simply an admitance that their belief is completly irrational and completly devoid of reasons and evidence, otherwise why call themselves "lacking knowledge on the existence of X, while believing that X exists/does not exist". This position, and others which hold that it will not or need not to be justified or have reasons for their existence,are absurd and can be called intellectually dishonest, furthermore they contradicts the definition of the philosophical burden of proof as they reject the intellectual obligation required. However, you can plausibly be a Theist and an agnostic regarding something other than existence, like the charactristics and attributes of a diety for example.4- ArgumentThe softest of Atheists claim that the Theist's arguments are false or irrational. Being a claim, it has a burden of proof. I rest my case.5- Sources(1) . http://thelawdictionary.org...