DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF WEIGH THE SAME FOR THE BELIEVER IN ATHEISM AS THE BELIEVER IN GOD?

First

Christian. “I believe God exists but prove to me that he does not.” Christian, “You have no way to show that God likely does not exist.”

Answer, “I believe or know that I have but you prove to me that I haven’t”.

Why evidence must go where your mouth is

If you claim that something is true, "God exists" or "God does not exist" then you have to substantiate that claim.  It is only fair and only honesty.  You have the burden of proof - it is not about strict proof necessarily.  Getting beyond reasonable doubt is enough.  And you must be open to new light otherwise you have an addiction or dogma not a belief.

Lack of belief in God would seem to be not enough to make you an atheist.  You are not saying there is no God.  But you are indicating it.  You may not claim the building is on fire but when you run out of it that says something. 
 
It is said that the absence of belief in God is not belief in the absence of God. Do they mean it is belief in God? It cannot be!  Is it agnosticism?  It is very like it.  It is an orientation not a claim.  But God is an action word. God by definition is about relationship is it is a belief in action word. It is belief about God as action and trying to tap into and be with this action God.  It is about how you live and keep God in everything all the way. The person who has the absence of belief in God is in all essentials an atheist.

The argument that the absence of a belief is not the same as the belief in the absence of something does not apply in relation to God when you keep an eye on what God is about - relationship.

Soft atheism is what happens when you can find no reason to believe in God.  You lack belief.  You are not claiming there is no God so it is not hard atheism which claims that.  But it is more than just a lack of belief for it denies that morality is grounded in God and that is a very big claim.  It is like you put yourself in the place of this God.  You are not saying there is no God but you sure as hell are showing it.

Looking at the burden of proof from the perception angle

 

Atheism is firstly a perception that there is no need for God as an explanation for how and why we exist and how we are to live.  The atheist starts off by perceiving that there is no sign of God. If the atheist believes there is no God then that is an offshoot but not a necessary one.

 

I may not claim that the man I don't see in the dark is a fiction.  But I clearly show then when I find no reason for thinking he is there, that I perceive that there is no man. I am functionally a denier that there is a man though not an actual denier.

 

I carry then no burden of proof.

 

Is there a burden of proof on the person who says they perceive that there is a God?

 

Yes for they would be like me if I said there were a man in the dark.  I know I have senses and they are claiming a special sense. I need to know if that sense is there and how it works for that is science, and I have a right to know if I could have such a sense too.

 

The reason is that the person who says they perceive that there are no fairies is taking the default.  In contrast, the person who says they perceive fairies is not.  So unless they are cheats, they should tell us why we should drop the automatic assumption.

 

We do not need fairies to explain anything. God is supposed to be an explanation which is why believers need to back that up more than they would fairies or whatever.

 

Even if they don't have a duty to prove, still they should. 

 

The biggest load?
 
Non-believers sometimes deny that religion is true and of divine origin or that God exists.
 
Take the person who asserts religion or God is true.
 
Take the person who asserts that religion or God is not true.
 
If both have the burden of proof it does not follow that they equally have it.
 
Some ideas need less proving or support than others. Some ideas DESERVE less proving or support than others. That depends on how true they are.
 
Too many faiths are irrational. There is no reality check in them. For the sake of reason, the atheist will have a lighter burden of proof than the believer in God.
 
Life can be liveable and fine without God and prayer and religion. Thus the burden of proof is heaviest on the believer.
 
The believer says a suffering baby who nobody can help is not proof that there is no loving God. The God rejecter because he has a lighter burden of proof can say it is. She keeps it simple.

Hard and soft
 
The hard atheist asserts that there is no God but also asserts that he sees no reason to believe. So he would agree with the soft atheist that there is no reason to believe. He just goes a step further. Hard atheism then stands on soft atheism. There can be no hard atheism without soft atheism.
 
The burden of proof cannot apply to the soft atheist. You do not have to prove the tooth fairy does not exist to be able to say that you see no reason to believe. It is the same with God.
 
For the hard atheist, it is more important for him to see no evidence for God than for him to get evidence that denies God's existence. The lack of evidence for God is more basic. It is his foundation. The denial of God is built on that foundation.
 
So we see then that the hard atheist in so far as she is a soft atheist is free from the burden of proof too. It is only the bit of her that is a hard atheist that has to worry about the burden of proof. But in the big picture, it does not matter much.
 
We conclude that soft atheists are free from the burden of proof. Hard atheists are free too in so far as they are soft atheists and they are always more soft atheist than hard atheist.

The atheist baby
 
An atheist sticks with the basics of atheism and does not claim God does not exist but simply says she has no reason to believe. She lacks belief in God but does not say there is no God. If that is all it takes to be atheist then is it the case that your budgie is an atheist as well? Or if that is too silly then is each baby an atheist?
 
Atheists answer that you need to be more than a baby to be able to form beliefs, unbeliefs or to have lack of belief either way.  Yet some say a baby does have basic but very foggy beliefs.  So the jury is out.
 
A creature that can form beliefs for or against something can suspend belief too.

If atheism at its root and in its basic form does not claim that there is no God but is a non-claim and is based on the absence of evidence for God then Christians say it cannot be an identity marker. Human would be an identity marker.  It says you have what it means to be human and cats and dogs etc are other.  Atheist would be like crossword-lover.  In a world that is against labels and divisive identity politics that would be a good thing.

It seems that you cannot call yourself an atheist as in identity. 

You can call yourself rational and if atheism is an area of rationality then why not call yourself atheist as in identity?  It is forgotten that human is not an identity but identities one of which is rational or thinking.  What you claim, what you do not claim, what you deny can be part of you in that sense.

The argument that there are no atheists if atheism is not a claim is bizarre. Christians use it for they want to dehumanise atheists and ignore their self-identification.

True or false
 
It is said by some religionists that  "Only a claim can be true or false.  If something is not true or false then it is meaningless as in, 'The dog ate the non-existent cat.' If atheism for many is not a claim, it is claiming nothing, but a lack of belief or the absence of belief in the existence of God then atheism is unable to be shown true or false.  It is incoherent meaningless nonsense."

If atheism says that there is nothing to show that God is real, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not the same as, "The dog ate the non-existent cat." The argument is full of distortions and lies that are meant to try and make atheists look stupid.
 
Is belief that there is no God a lack?
 
Atheism that lacks belief in God but does not say there is no God is not a claim.  Atheism that says there is no God is making a claim.  It is a lack in another way.  If I fail to believe in maths I lack.  I just lack.  If I deny maths I lack in another way.  I actively lack, not just lack.

 

Evil and suffering

 

The atheist has to show that evil is just there and is not a mystery.  The believer makes a mystery of it for it has to fit the notion of a loving God.  So the believer has to work harder to justify.  The burden of proof is heavier for it is a rule of reason and good sense that the fewer explanations you need for something the better and avoid explanations that get needlessly complicated.
 
Finally
 
The wording "burden of support" is better than burden of proof . The key is that a person must support what they are saying.

The duty and need to demonstrate that something is true or probably true arises when a person asserts something as true. The atheist is always largely basing her atheism on the lack of evidence for God. Thus the atheist does not and cannot have the burden of proof in so far as she is not asserting anything. The burden of proof to show God exists rests on the shoulders of the believer. It is not true that those who say that God exists and that those who say he does not have an equal duty to prove. The burden is heaviest on the believers. Atheists are entitled to not bend the knee to God just because they see no evidence.  Soft atheism is not a belief but acts like it is so that is why it is atheism and not agnosticism.
 
The lies and distortions coming from Christians on the subject of the burden of proof is disturbing.
 
Every religion has the burden of proof of showing that it manifests the will of its version of God. That entails showing its God probably if not definitely exists.