Monday School: The Burden Of Proof…

Welcome back to Monday School! Still “The Rational Corrective To All That Nonsense They Tried To Teach You Yesterday!” and unlike most major religious institutions, I am willing to present evidence!

That happens to be today lesson: Who truly bears the burden of proof?

This is a very good question because over the years/decades since I started my down my godless path, I have experienced what is commonly referred to by atheist as ‘burden shifting’. This is when someone tires to shift the burden of proof onto someone else. The reason for this shift is quite convienent, the person doing the shifting has no evidence or proof to meet their burden, so rather than admit it… the shift the burden somewhere else and try to put the denies on the defensive instead. It’s a common tactic used by thesists around the world, asking people to prove that their claims does not exist, rather than meet the burden of their own claims.

Just to get it out of the way, I’m going to state where I have always stood on this issue: When it comes to the burden of proof, it is up to the claimant to prove their claims, not the skeptic. If someone, anyone walks around making claims about supernatural beings, miracles and other extraordinary things, it is up to the person making the claims to prove that it happened. It is not the job of the skeptic to prove anything, they are not the ones making the claim.

When applied to religion, this stand that I take is simple. If someone makes claims that there is a God, that He/She/It/Them live above us and control us, than it is up to the person making that claim to prove that it is true, not the atheist to prove that it is wrong. We are the ones who are calling bullshit, that makes it the responsiblity of the claimant, the person making the extraordinary claims to prove that it’s true.

The kind of ‘burden shifting’ I have witnessed is flawed right from the beginning. You’re asking someone to prove non-existance which is not possible because if it’s not there, it’s not there. That’s why the burden lies with the perosn who claims existance, because if something truly is real, then evidence somewhere should exist.

Some theists might ask ‘If God didn’t create the Universe, then what did?” which is a common form of burden shifting. For some foolish reason, the claim maker expects the Skeptic to provide and prove their own reason for how the universe came to be or their reason (God) would be the reason by default. That however is not how things work. The claim that God created everything doesn’t get a free pass, it must be backed up and substantiated with evidence like any other reason. The only default answer to any question this complex would be ‘I don’t konw’ rather than another reason that has not met its burden.

Another type of burden shifting comes when the claim maker tries to play the victim. They try to make an accusation that theism can be dismissed while atheism seems to be invincable. Truth is there is only one rule when debating the existance of anything: When someone (anyone) tries to make any claim during a debate, you give yourself a burden of proof. If someone doesn’t believe your claim than it is your burden to bear, not your skeptic’s.

If someone claims that a God exists and the burden of proving that is too much, it’s always within your power to withdraw your claim. If someone fails to believe your claims, it’s might be because you failed to meet your burden, and that is not a double standard… it’s how things are done. You cannot shift your burden to the person who is not making the claim, it’s your claim and you have to prove it rather than someone else to unprove it.

For the longest time, people who tried to make wild claims and avoid questions about them have come to realize that we live in a world where faith is no longer good enough. Claims are burdened to be prove with evidence of actual substance, not poetry and misdirection. Religion despite their best efforts have never been accountable to the burden, but they should be held to it now. In a more advanced and civilized society, our standards are increasing and if someone/anyone expects us to follow the tales of the past, you must meet your burden of proof or get tossed into the pile of inadquatcy with the rest of the unproven fables.

If I were to tell you tomorrow that a physic poodle from Mars was teleporting me important messages and rules that everyone must follow without question, would you believe me or ask for evidence? If I were to make such an absurd claim the burden of proof lies with me to convince the person I’m telling these claims to with evidence. If I fail to meet my burden, no one has any reason by believe a poodle from Mars is beaming messages into my head. The same standard must be made for people who claim there is a God. If you can’t prove it, you need to find the necessary evidence or begin to question your own instutition and ask them for evidence. If none can be provided, then you must ask why you believe it in the first place and evaluate the status of your religious upbrining.

Some people try to shift the burden by making the outrageious claim that Atheism is a belief that has to be proven. That is not true, atheism is not a belief. Atheism if a rejection of someone else’s belief, not the creation of our own belief. This makes the Atheist the skeptic, not the claim maker. Atheists are not the one’s making any claims, therefore we do not have to meet any burden of proof. Trying to state that Atheism is a belief is like trying to claim that refusing to collect stamps is a hobby. That kind of logic is absurd and more importantly it’s false.

Claim makers in the realm of science do not hide or attempt to shift their burden of proof, but embrace their burden as a chance to validtate their work. Without the burden of proof, the progress of mankind’s education would slow to a standstill and not advance in any way. Thankfully, we have not had a problem with people in the realm of science backing up their claims with evidence and valuable data that meets their burdens. Religious or supernatural claim makers who assume they are exempt from the same standards that the other claims makers are asked to endure are grossly mistaken and in an increastingly educated world, their special pleading will only see them left behind in the darkness of past of ignorance, where many of their claims originated.

If someone is unwilling to back up their claims with a shred of evidence, thus not meeting their burden of proof… then atheists are free to dismiss it without evidence as well. That is the way things work, so unless you are willing to meet your burden of proof, then I have no reason to move from my current position which is to deny the claims made by those who state the existence of a higher being. Until such evidience is presented for the rest of us to examine or critique, I will continue to live as if no God exists until the mentioned burden is met. Until then, organized religions and those that claim to support their absurd, unproven stories can piss off.