Religion does have a huge burden of proof. Like proving Jesus rose from the dead, god exists, and a whole bunch of other stuff that hasn't proven to exist or happened. Another thing is the Big Bang theory and evolution. Thoese have been proven to exist but religion had still denied it.
Theists are the ones making claims- that their god or god exists, that this god performs miraculous deeds. Therefore they have the burden of proof, not the person who is skeptical of those claims.
If I claim that I have an invisible, intangible dragon in my garage that breathes magical fire that can raise the dead, it's up to me to prove it. The burden does not lie on the person who hears my claim and calls BS.
Any claims of existence must be backed up with testable predictions, otherwise they are irrelevant and should be rejected by Occams razor. Even if religion refrained from making statements intruding on the realm of science, it is still uncalled for to postulate moral values. We can have morality without imaginary friends telling us what it is. Thus, God is unnecessary for morality and can be rejected just for being redundant.
I can go on and on about how religion is untrue or things like that. But I prefer to stay on topic.
See, religion can claim anything they want to. This is fine but what is NOT fine is that they expect everyone to believe this.
I choose to only believe something if I can see tangible proof of it.
We are human beings with intelligence and reason. Those qualities demand that evidence must be found and examined when claims are made. Otherwise, these claims are just that: claims.
I believe that both Atheism and Religion are guilty of this, since I do not see any reason to believe or disbelieve in the existence of a creative force in the universe, one way or another. But since this is about Religion, my answer is yes.
If you make claims, prove it.
I actually made a debate, post voting period now, that reflects why this is important (http://www.Debate.Org/debates/There-is-a-giant-diamond-buried-in-my-backyard/1/) You see, if we allow people to make ridiculous claims like "Their is an omnipotent sky wizard watching over us.", then we must demand proof. If we do not demand proof, then we must accept every religious proposal, including The Giant Diamond.
Whether a god even exists is one of the greatest questions of our universe, and such a question demands a lot of compelling evidence to back it up. Even more so if we're not just speaking of the possible existence of a god, but also of a very specific definition of one. Like say Yahweh or Allah.
If we still had the same moronic notion that people hundreds of years ago had, we`d still be stupid enough to believe that if a person was having a seizure was instead being invaded by the devil. Think of all the terrorist activities going on because of religious idiots in the middle east. If God cared so much about us, than he would`ve done something by now. Every dumbass stupid enough to worship their imaginary friend should be burned alive, good riddance.
Our species has a desire to understand the world around us. One of the biggest mysteries was how did the world begin. For ancient civilizations there was no concept of science explaining things so it had to be created by some entity, namely god. There are hundreds of religions that humans have invented, each with their own concept of god and the rules that he/she have established. It doesn't require an advanced degree to recognize that they can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.
If you make a claim then you have to back it up with some real evidence. If god really existed and wanted everyone to obey his/her rules and demanded that we all worship him/her then this all powerful god could prove its existence beyond any doubt. Instead we are told to believe on faith as if that is a good thing. I am an atheist but if god could demonstrate unequivocally its existence then I could be swayed. Until then I am not going to place my belief in myths that were invented by humans.
Many uneducated people think that atheists are making the positive claim that god does not exist, but by definition atheists don't make any claims, but rather simply fail to accept the claim that god exists due to lack of evidence. Regardless of how long people have believed in god, they have never proven his existence, and therefore the null hypothesis is to withhold judgment or belief until more evidence has been made ready.
There is no burden of proof. There is a common misconception that religion is somehow comparable to a scientific theory. However, this is completely wrong. Religion is concerned about finding spiritual and philosophical answers to moral questions. Science is concerned with discovering facts. These are two completely different goals that are approached in two completely different ways. There are religious teachings about scientific questions like how the earth came to be, but these were never the central purpose of religion. Science has to prove things, but religion offers philosophical and moral reasoning. It is absurd to compare that to scientific facts that need to be proven.
In terms of Christianity I don't think God need provide more evidence than he has. So the burden according to atheist philosopher Anthony Flew, is on the atheist to show why more proof than exists is needed. Each side can argue that the other need to provide more proof, but I think Flew is correct. I think we have just enough proof to make a informed decision, and not too much so that we could not deny His existence.
This question is only about the burden to prove. It does not relate to the question of the proof itself, nor to the validity of arguments. For that reason, I shall only consider the burden of proof. In law, the rule is that the challenger, or plaintiff, is always the party responsible to prove his argument. Think about it. The presumption in daily life is always that of innocence from crime or of no liability for somebody's harm experienced. Similarly, the burden to prove for the change of law is on the party wishing to change law. I will make the assumption here that by "religion," the asker means not a belief system (atheism is, after all, a spiritual belief system, as is secular humanism or agnosticism, based just as much on presumption as any church), but "organized religion", specifically Judeo-Christianity. In this circumstance, that means that the burden of proof lies with those who stand against religion. This is because, historically, man has been religious. Man has always believed in some creator or another. In Western civilization specifically, history bears out that Christianity is the status quo. Our society assumes Christianity. Not simply in its presence, but in its culture, in its law. It is because of Judeo-Christianity that our society has a preference for the poor, the downtrodden, the underdog. In no other culture in history is this true. It is only in cultures based on Judaism that this is seen. Therefore, it is to be presumed that Christianity leads to this cultural more. This is only one example, and there are many others to be found with little difficulty. Therefore, Judeo-Christianity is the established and assumed cultural status quo. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with claimants against religion.
Yes and No.
It depends entirely on the assertion which is made.
If a theist asserts the existence of a god then they must be able to provide a rational justification for such an argument; there is a burden of proof. Such arguments do in fact exist, but the major point of contention for atheists operating under an empiricist framework is that such arguments are not always falsifiable (and therefore invalid) even if they are logically sound.
On the other hand, if an atheist asserts the non-existence of a god, then the burden of proof lies on the atheist. While it is possible to prove a negative in some instances, it is incredibly difficult to prove the non-existence of a god on empirical grounds -- just as it is difficult to prove the affirmative on empirical grounds. The most reasonable position for the atheist then is to argue that there is insufficient evidence for a god and avoid the burden of proof altogether.
If both theist and atheist are in a formal debate, then they both have the burden of proof for their respective positions.
Back a few centuries ago, the burden of proof was on people saying God doesn't exist because it was widely accepted that He did. Now days the tables have turned so its on religion to explain themselves. Why? Because people chose to. Neither side has any more proof than they did before, people just chose to favour Atheism or Agnosticism these days.
I admit corruption and crime in churches didn't help, but that doesn't disprove God, it just shows that those who acted as if they were called by God were simply using and abusing power.
Neither side has any more 'evidence' than the other. Never has, never did. It's all down to personal belief based on ideas and experiences
People say science disproves religion - how do we still have so many religious scientists then? I think it is one example of why the debate is stupid. God and science can coexist. Therefore, each side will never have an answer to disprove the other side's argument (unless God decides to do something to make everyone know He exists)
If the Burden of proof relies on Christians that God exists, then why do atheists spend so much time trying to disprove his existence? Christians rely on faith, we don't need proof even though the universe , earth and every living thing is proof of an intelligent designer.
If a human could phantom eternity even just a little bit they wouldn't be asking for proof who created God. Yet because they can't they need some kind of physical proof as to why and how the universe was created. Even if it means making something up and telling themself over and over it's true.
Religion can't prove that their ideals are true, and whatever is against religion can't prove their own side to be correct either.
So, if religion can't prove it's ideals, that doesn't automatically make the other side correct. And, if the other side can't prove its own ideals correct, that doesn't automatically make religion correct either.
Therefore, the burden of proof lies on all sides, who ever wants to be the victor, prove their point.