Atheists

Atheists like to think they hold a default position that the burden of proof is totally on the theist arguing for the existence of God, and the atheist does not need to defend their view that there is no God. According to the atheist, all an atheist has to do is shoot down each argument the theist makes for God's existence, and never make any assertions for his own worldview, and atheism wins. However, in reality, the atheist has a burden of proof, too. Here's why: The theist provides reasons for the existence and activity of God based upon evidence-based arguments such as the origin of life, the appearance of intelligent design, the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of human consciousness, the existence of free will, the reality of transcendent moral truth and values, the preciousness of human life, etc. As theists, we believe those things are realities because God exists; we assert that if God did not exist, those things would not be realities. In contrast, by claiming that God does not exist, the atheist must give evidence-based reasons for the existence of those things based upon a naturalistic worldview. So, neither side gets a free pass! The burden of proof is upon the theist to give evidence why the existence of God is the best explanation for the existence of those things, and the burden of proof is on the atheist to give evidence why naturalism is the best explanation for why those things exist. The atheist must give evidence to support his claim of naturalism, not just shoot down the evidence the theist provides and then claim that atheism wins. Both groups (theists and atheists) share a burden of proof.