Deutsche Version: von der Beweislast des Atheisten
Paul Copan has written a great article several years ago showing that both theists and atheists have a burden of proof regarding the truth of their claims:
http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201303/201303_026_Athiests.cfm
I’ve give additional reasons to think so on my blog under the category “Parsimony”
. https://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/category/parsimony/
If you’re discussing with an atheist friend, don’t forget that aspect.
Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)
My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
Advertisements
The burden of proof does not rest exclusively on one person and shifts over the course of a conversation.
Theists, in my experience, use series of scripted lines to argue for a deist God and then, if they absolutely have to, sneak in a faith based premise like “And my particular religion is true because of the historical fact of the resurrection’ or ‘because of the miracle of the Koran’ or ‘because of X sacred texts and miracles’. It doesn’t matter what the faith in question is; the arguments are always the same. I always found this approach dishonest because I’m not particularly interested in deism; neither is the theist.
But most atheists are primarily concerned with the political and social power of religious organizations and consider philosophy just one step away from the waffle of theologians. From this point of view, it’s not important if someone is an atheist or an agonistic proving he/she rejects authority founded upon claims of revelation. Sometimes I think atheists should accept agnosticism arguendo just to shift the conversation away from so-called rational proofs of God towards organized religion.
Please find a completely different Illuminated Understanding of Truth & Reality via these references.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-god
http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/4068 Space-Time IS Love-Bliss
The Purification of Doubt
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/nirvanasara/chapter1.html