Atheism Has No Burden of Proof

1- Definitions1a- Rejecting a claimMy opponent strawmans or misunderstands/misread my argument. I did not state "one requires to take THE alternative position", I stated that you require to take AN alternative position. Therefore your analogy in no way disagrees with my position.My opponent begs the question by adding "non-belief" as a position. If the Atheist position correctly asserts to be "no position", then what is the support for the assertion that it is correct and ought to be taken? Furthermore, is my opponent claiming that you can validly reject a claim without providing justification?My opponent contradicts himself by stating: "In the same way, rejecting a claim says absolutely nothing about what claims you accept. To reject, disbelieve, non-belief, etc… all point to the same thing, which is what a person does not accept".Wouldn't that be, you know, accepting something other than what you have rejected, which means taking an alternative position? By my opponent's logic, if I call my position non-Atheism; The disbelief that God does not exist, then I have no burden of proof because I have not stated what my position is and I need not justify my rejection, thus it is the Atheist's burden of proof to prove that God does not exist.As I previously stated without being disputed by my opponent, the alternative positions are:1- God does not exist2- It is impossible to know whether God exists or not.Both make a claim and have a burden of proof.1b- Intellectual positionMy opponent misunderstands my argument; "intellectual position" means reaching a logical conclusion, obviously this means that the people who have accepted the argument leading to this conclusion believe it to be intellectual. Whether the position is rational/irrational or sound/unsound is to be evaluated.1c- Defending AtheismBased on the resolution and definition you provided, you have to defend Atheism, period. My opponent acknowledges that strong Atheism, weak Atheism, Gnostic Atheism, among others are considered Atheism. Therefore, if any of them do not fulfill the resolution, then the resolution fails. My opponent claims that I bootstrapped into the vague definition that holds multiple views, however what did I state that Pro did not agree with exactly?Until recent times, Atheism traditionally meant the explict belief that God as defined by major religions or his activities do not exist (1, p.451). So basicly, if you disbelief in Atheism, you could believe in Agnosticism or Theism. If you disbelief in Agnosticism, you could believe in either Atheism or Theism. If you disbelief in Theism, you could believe in either Atheism or Agnosticism.When I call Atheism non-Theism (or if you prefer: negative Atheism), I am not referring to an intellectual position, I am refeering to a psychological state that can include different sets of beliefs.Pro's analogies are regarding behavior, which are often ethically-neutral, when Atheism is addressing belief. You surely don't see apolitical folks raising money, conferences, churches, etc... or have individuals strongly advocating people to be apolitical. This can only work if belief is involved (Like: Citizens being apolitical is good for society).2- Burden of proofMy opponent acknowledges that Atheists make claims and must justify their position, however he tries to appeal to ambiguity in order to try to hide what is equivalent to a concession.In a nutshell, some Atheists found it too troublesome to provide either logic or evidence in support of their ideology regarding God's [defined as: Immaterial first cause] existence. Therefore, these Atheists disingenuously resorted to deny their actual ideology and avoiding answering whether there is a God or not.3- Rebuttal3a- Theism and Atheism Address beliefAn apparent strawman or an inability to detect the contradiction by my opponent.Pro stated in his original argument: "A statement of whether one is a theist or an atheist is a statement about what they believe regarding the existence of God".Comparing with the provided definition for philosophical burden of proof, according to Pro's position, if I ask an Atheist why he believes what he believes, I am to accept his position and deem it justified afterward even without him providing an answer, explanation, or reasoning.3b- No dispute3c- Two prongs of a dilemmaMy opponent states that the burden is always on the proposition, however my opponent also claims that when the Atheist claims the claim to be false or claims that God does not exist, that claim is not the same thing as a claim, and need not be justified as if the said claim was actually a claim.Your analogy falls flat as the claims: "God does not exist" and "It is impossible for humans to validly conclude whether God exists or not" can be the proposition being addressed as well; therefore Atheists would have burden of proof in this case and the resolution fails.My opponent states that his courtroom example displays absurdity, however that is not the case as I demonstrated with quote about how the burden needs to shift from Black's Law dictionary. I ask my opponent to present an example in which the defense do not attempt to rebut the prosecution without the example being absurd.The claim or "resolution" in that court is "The defendant is guilty" (Hence, the judge declares: "not guilty"), therefore the defense is not obligated to defend the claim "the defendant is innocent", only "The claim that the defendant is guilty is false" by refuting the argument presented. However, they are free to prove a contradictory antithesis such as "the defendant is innocent" to assist in negating the prosecutor's case. Now replace "the defendant is guilty" with "God does not exist", or "It is impossible for humans to know whether God exists or not", and based on your example Atheists has a burden of proof, thus negating the resolution.As for your conspiracy theory example, as long as the sides give reasons in the form of logic and evidence, then by the definition for the philosophical BoP, they have fulfilled their obligation/intellectual responsibility and burden to justify their position of acceptance/rejection. I ask my opponent to define what he meant by the word "burden"; it seems to have meant "Have one side need not to justify their claims (including that another claim is false) and be taken and accepted for granted, while the other side must provide logic and evidence to support their claims".I ask Pro this question: If an Atheist makes the proposition: "God does not exist", does he have a burden of proof or not?Are we having two unproductive debates at the same time since I provided arguments? The goal of the opposing side is to negate the other side's position, this can be done be refuting all their arguments and justifications for their position or by proving an antithesis position that contradicts other side's position.It is bewildering that my opponent claimed that no rebuttal was provided regarding what he believes to be a productive intelligent discussion when the whole support for his argument was based on an analogy which I provided a rebuttal for. Furthermore, my opponent seemed to concede the debate in that same argument: "The problem here is that each prong is an assertion on its own, which means that both sides had the burden of proof". Here, my opponent confirms that Atheists CAN have a burden of proof, this is enough for the resolution to be negated.The burden of rebuttal has the exact same functionality as the burden of proof: One side claims that the opponent's arguments are false and justifies their position. Thus, it falls under the definition of the philosophical burden of proof. Does my opponent concede that Atheists carry this burden?3d- Moved to Agnosticism3e- Not Believing Proposition A =/= Believing proposition BPro states that the proposition being discussed as "God exists" while we are discussing Atheism. The proposition is "God does not exist" or "It is not possible to know whether God exists or not". By definition, unless the Agnosticism is temporary/personal an Agnostics claims that whether God exists or not is unknowable, therefore it also claims that classical/positive Atheists and Theists are irrational since they claim to know something that is unknowable. My opponent continues adding empty words like "bootstrapping" without providing an explanation of what was added. 3d- AgnosticismMy opponent is either unable to spot a glaring contradiction or he does not acknowledge the law of non-contradiction.Is: "I know something that I do not know" a contradiction?If the answer is yes then my point regarding an Agnostic (regarding the existence of God) gnostic Atheist/Theist being incoherent stands.Theism and classic/Gnostic Atheism claims that the beliefs regarding God are knowable. Agnosticism claims that the beliefs regarding God's are unknowable. Thus, they both deal with and answer whether beliefs regarding God are knowable or not and are mutually exclusive. 4- Argument4a- What the respective positions addressPro leads to yet an other contradiction. By definition, an Atheist believes the Theist's arguments to be false, otherwise it means that the Atheist accepts the Theistic conclusion and the Atheist is not an Atheist. Unless Pro is claiming that Atheists believe the Theist's arguments to be not-false, then that is exactly with the respective positions addresses.4b- Second Argument1- Atheism [Read: Non-Theism] includes a set of beliefs.2a- A belief contain propositions.2b- The beliefs that fall under Atheism contain propositions (Like: "Deities do not exist", "The term God is meaningless", "It impossible for humans to know whether deities exists or not").C: Therefore, at least for some Atheism, Atheism demonstrably has a burden of proof.5- Sources(1) http://books.google.ae...