The Atheist’s Burden of Proof – Debunked (And the Definition of Atheism)

The Atheist’s Burden of Proof – Debunked (And the Definition of Atheism)

This is The Atheist’s Burden of Proof – Debunked (And the Definition of Atheism).

To support me on Patreon (thank you):

To support me through PayPal (thank you):

To follow me on Facebook:

And, to tweet with me on Twitter:

1). My ‘David Mitchell Doesn’t Understand Atheism (And Neither do Agnostics)’:

2). Dave Rubin – “The best definition I’ve found for atheism is that it is not the denial of gods, it is a lack of belief in gods. This is an incredibly important distinction to make.”:

3). Cosmic Skeptic (Alex O’Connor) – “All atheism is is a lack of belief in a particular deity, chiefly due to lack of evidence.”:

4). The Atheist Guy – “Atheism is non-belief in the existence of a deity. It doesn’t make assertions and it doesn’t in anyway address knowledge. Non-belief is the default position until the burden of proof is met.”:

5). Dusty Smith – “Atheism is a lack of belief in gods!”:

6). Armoured Skeptic – “The definition of atheist is a person who lacks belief, or does not believe, in god. Period.”:

7). Paul Provenza on The Rubin Report with David Silverman – “I try to clarify this with people who’re under the impression, usually with negative connotations, that, you know, atheists think they know there’s no god, but really, I really subscribe to the passing of that – which is that that’s not the case – what it is is that it’s unreasonable for me to believe there is a god.”:

As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you defeat those who erroneously assert that atheists have a burden of proof, or that there’s only one true definition of atheism. Stay rational my fellow apes.



Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi says:

"Most of self-described atheists…" – you mention this quite a few times throughout the video, but do you maybe have some reputable sources to quote on this one?

I agree on the logical part of the argument, that definition is quite good position to find oneself on, even you were previously of different opinion, but you only quoted few public atheist figures.

"Most of atheists" is a bit bigger number of peopke and definitely would require some substantial non-anecdotal proof, like survey or some other study?

Dr. Ring Ding says:

Brilliant again.

heukelummer says:

i asked many believers and god itself to show me evidence of its excistense, …. nope! and now i found God! on facebook! and it´s a fucking atheist too ! 😉

Roedy Green says:

I think the notion of a deity is absurd. I am quite willing to assert they don't exist. Why?

Evidence Yahweh Does Not Exist

Yahweh is undetectable. He never modifies the natural flow of the universe. According to the bible, this should be a daily occurrence.

Yahweh never grants prayers after multiple biblical promises to grant them all.

There is horrible evil and suffering. A benevolent god like Yahweh would do something about this.

Nearly all of the workings of the universe have a natural explanation. There is nothing Yahweh needs to do.

There is no discernible difference between a universe with and without Yahweh. Not even Christians can come up with a way to tell the difference. By Occam’s razor, we might as well assume Yahweh does not exist.

The author(s) of the bible are unbelievably incompetent. Yahweh could not possibly have done the main activity ascribed to him namely author the bible. A deity could not possibly have made such a botch of it (with errors, inconsistencies, ramblings and irrelevancies). Without the bible, we have no longer have any tangible evidence of his existence.

Daniel Norman says:

I can prove that the gods of the main religions dont exist, if you follow the doctrine, but if you believe in evolution and how solar systems and galaxys are made along with a god, then i would call that spiritualism, and i cannot disprove a god made the universe. So most religous people ard just spiritual but following cultural customs. Just a thought

lacontrabasse says:

Hello Rationality Rules. Paul Provenza, in your video, gives a sensible definition of his position as an atheist: "It is unreasonable for me to believe that there is a God." .

The distinction made by both sides, atheist and theist, when discussing burden of proof and the difference between lacking a belief and stating that a claim is not true, is neurotic nit-picking, and disingenuous.

We all know that theists claim their God exists. Atheists ask theists why they believe, what evidence they have seen that led them to the belief that their God exits. Theists can provide no evidence that will persuade a reasonable non-believer to believe. What is claimed as evidence is either irrelevant, untestable or incredible.

If ever a theist were to ask an atheist their reasons for non-belief (a rare event, in my experience), the atheist can supply a mountain of evidence to show that belief in a god is the product of the human mind and emotions. Cultural pressure, emotional need, and confirmation bias, these are well-understood, non-supernatural reasons to account for belief in any god ( and for a multitude of other non-rational, non-religious beliefs) .

The atheist does not have to sit pathetically on the fence. The jury returns with a decision. It is unreasonable to believe that there is a God. The verdict, on the evidence and argument heard, is that no god exists. That is not a claim, requiring a burden of proof. It's a decision, a climbing down from the fence to adopt a position. That said, the atheist has supplied evidence to show why it is reasonable to believe that gods are imaginary man-made inventions. The theist has supplied no evidence to show why it reasonable to believe that gods exist.

Trenton James says:

I agree that the "lack of belief" definition of atheism is the most common use amongst most self-described atheists. But if you have the label of "agnostic atheism" it does not make sense in light of the "lack of belief" definition. If you are an agnostic atheist and you lack a belief in God you are saying that you are agnostic about your lack of belief. This definition is not a very practical one. I think atheism is better defined as the rejection of theism or belief that there are no gods. I have also noticed that some atheist who identify with the "lack of belief" definition tend to make much stronger assertions than could actually back up. I suspect this is the case because they know they don't have to give a defense for their position under that definition. Atheists have a burden of justification on the basis of their level of confidence in their assertions.

Crazy Viking says:

I love the parade of pseudo-intellectual YouTube skeptics to support your definition rather than using and legitimate scholarly source.

Miblert says:

your face is kinda wonky idk

TheSoap1992 says:

Its like saying I dont think Unicorns or Orcs exist and have to prove it.

Sandra Axelsson says:

Theism- the lack of the belief in the lack of Gods lack of lacking.

Desertphile says:

I am an atheist because I lack belief that the gods exist— it IS a lack. I see no negativity in using the word "lack." I also lack a broken leg and lung cancer (accordinf to the chest xrays).

Write a comment