honestly, I think you've got it the wrong way round. there is a distinct pattern where atheists enter a thread and trash it by assuming the burden of proof always falls on the theists. Often if theists do offer evidence, it is shot down as unacceptable (e.g. because it's scripture).
O the irony.
Nicely laid bait, sir. I shall bite.
The retort is that atheism is "lack of belief" and so has no burden of proof, even though this assumes a naturalistic bias without evidence to support it. By defining atheism in this way, it means that atheists get the 'high ground' and there is pretty much nothing a theist can say that will be taken seriously because it is the atheists who get to decide what is an isn't reasonable. the idea that faith or revelation could be valid means to knowledge is never seriously entertianed, nor are relativistic and subjectivist attacks on science and knowledge given serious consideration.
Let us make two things clear here.
1. Atheism is the response to theism, or rather, the response to a God belief. That is all atheism is.
2. Even if all atheists do claim that it is impossible for a God to exist, the BOP sides with the party who makes the initial claim.
Overall that means theists have the BOP. Individually, we are on equal ground.
Whilst theists are attacked for using the 'god of the gaps', no similar effort is made to question the assumption that, inspite of scientific ignorance and uncertianty on the subject, there will be a naturalistic explanation for things we don't know. The former is considered faith, whilst the latter faces no similar scrutiny because it is taken as self-evident.
Nice assertions, I don't think they're quite as accurate as you seem to.
Demographics of these groups plays a very important part in this. There are at least two positions that could actually challange this; the first is Deists who would question the naturalistic bias on the basis of reason and perhaps argue that the god of the gaps is a valid argument; the second are atheists who accept they have a burden of proof in asserting there is no god (i.e. strong atheists in the strictest sense of the term) and so could well debate theists by recognising the need to refute their arguments. These groups are not represented in most discussions and are under-represented in RF overall. From the point of view of theists, there aren't many who are able (or perhaps willing) to challange this position because they view science and religion as opposed to each other, rather than reconcilable. The latter position requires considerable philosophical and scientific knowledge to pull off convincingly. The "lack of belief" crowd of weak atheists therefore pretty much always wins because they don't face a serious intellectual challange to the scientific status quo. this is because they form a large group and are probably one of the most active on RF overall.(edit: it's also because almost no-one here has the background to take up such positions).
As a strong atheist I will willingly admit that if I make the initial assertion that God cannot be real, I have a BOP.
If I do not make the initial assertion, I will adhere to no such thing.
[Response to the next half below... I accidentally quoted the whole paragraph and don't feel like going back to split it]
Well, for some odd reason, it makes more sense to believe that science has a better chance of proving something than a unsubstantiated belief.
Is it not logical to rely on something that has proven itself repeatedly, rather than something that cannot prove itself once, to explain these gaps?
I don't believe science is always correct about everything, nor do I believe science can discover/uncover everything.
What I do believe, however, is that in comparison to "God did it", science wins every time.
I realise I'm not going to get though to most people because I'm pretty much saying that the idea that debating the 'earth is flat' would have some philosophical merit about why we accept scientific ideas such as evolution, the big bang etc and that we cannot take them for granted. I tend to notice this because I have held many heretical views which go against the scientific consensus because they don't fit within materialist philosophy. so I accept many theists arguments as having some validity in offering philosophical challanges to the scientific consensus, even though it is for totally opposed reasons. There have been times when I've thought about becoming a Deist to liven' things up a bit but it would be alot of work and its not something I'm certian on.
While we're talking about science and philosophy, may I direct you to the
Scientific Method?
It is the single most reliable way we have of verifying the validity of something.
