Atheists virtually always deny that they have any Burden of Rebuttal when they claim to reject theist arguments and propositions. They merely claim that theists have not proven their case, or have not provided evidence. And they do so without any justification for their claim.
Said one Atheist:
” If there was such a thing as the burden of rebuttal you could never believe anything as there is an infinite number of concepts to rebuttal. Since this leads to absurdities, it is the burden of the one making the positive claim to provide evidence.”
Qualia Soup
There is likely to be only one valid rebuttal containing one sequence of valid premises; if the Atheist opposition cannot provide a valid refutation, then there are, of course, an infinite number of
non-valid rebuttals based on non-valid premises. But that infinite regression has no bearing on whether there exists one, single valid rebuttal. The originator of the original argument is obliged to point out the non-validity of the false rebuttals, in other words, the theist will point out the errors in the Atheist's false case. Of course, iff there is no
valid rebuttal, then the conversation will potentially go on infinitely while the rebuttor searches for a valid reason to rebut where none exists.
However, the Atheist is free to showcase his presumed intellectual abilities by demonstrating the actual, factual errors he perceives to exist in the theist proposition.
But the Atheist position is not really that. The position taken by Atheists is that they can “rationally” reject any argument without giving either a reason or reasoning for their rejection. They merely claim that the theist argument is "not evidence" (Note 1) or "not proven"(Note 2).
But that is not a rational position; it is, in fact,
anti-rational. Given the opportunity to describe in detail what he thinks the standards are for either evidence or for logical deduction, the Atheist demurrs and claims "no Burden of Rebuttal". The internet is rife with this claim.
If an Atheist will not provide any reasons for having rejected an argument, then his reason for having done so is not based on logic or evidence or he would have provided that. No reason = no reasoning. As with all things Atheist, the self reigns, and the emotions dominate: the rejection is emotionally based. Why?
In order to maintain his personal bliss as unencumbered by the authority of external rules (both moral and logical), the Atheist will rationalize reasons to support his position on the intellectual responsibility to show his reasoning, whether in the VOID or having emerged into untethered free thought. But in a debate where tethered, principled deduction rules, his own form of logic invariably fails him completely. Thus, if he has no rational refutation (and he does not), then he claims that he needs no refutation anyway. He argues that he need not give any reasons or reasoning for his claim that “there is no evidence” (false), that the evidence is insufficient to convince (why is that, then? What are your reasons, your needs?), that there must be physical evidence (there is, but it is never addressed when presented), etc.
Why is the evidence for theism which is given to the Atheist blanket-rejected out of hand, never point by point with counter deductive arguments? Few make any "logic" arguments, none make any disciplined deductive counter arguments, and generally none address the actual issue, which is direct, hard evidence which categorically proves that Atheism is correct and valid and incontrovertible. (Never mind the recent inclusion of agnosticism into the category of Atheism, a false re-definition ploy in a failed attempt to justify giving no refutation).
It resolves to this: either the Atheist has valid reasons of logic or evidence, or he does not. Either he can justify his rejection, or he cannot. That he will not, or need not justify his rejection is merely absurd, and is intellectual dishonest.
There is only one valid reason for an Atheist to reject his responsibility to actually rebut, with statements of logic or evidence, theist arguments and evidence. That reason is that
the Atheist has no reason to give for his rejection, and he has no reasoning to share. At bottom, the reason is emotional neediness, not rational discovery of valid and true deduction.
Denial of the intellectual responsibility for justifying the rejection of an argument is a prime example of Atheist dishonesty. In this case it is intellectual dishonesty, but intellectual dishonesty is an indicator of moral dishonesty as well. To say "you have failed to make your case" while declining to say why is not a reason: it is a lie. A lie is a lie.
To take one step further, when the Atheist community advertises itself as “Good Without God”, it is both intellectually dishonest, and morally dishonest. First, no person is completely good, and to make that claim is morally: !Good; the actual question is when and where are you !Good? The statement, "Good without God" is a conclusion without premises, and is demonstrably false.
Second is the issue of what Atheists might think constitutes "Good". Atheist philosophers cannot agree on what the term "Good" even means. Common variety Atheists don’t even think that far into the issue: their claim essentially is that because they are not in prison, that makes them Good. But they are not even up to their own standards of “high empathy” as “Good”, so Atheist claims of being Good are merely blustered propaganda and without any substance.
The Atheist claim of not needing to provide justification for rejecting theist arguments is both intellectually dishonest and morally dishonest.
More on intellectual responsibility
here and
here.
Note 1. When pressed on the issue of what constitutes "evidence" many Atheists claim to accept non-material evidence, but then reject all evidence which is non-material.
Note 2. When pressed on the issue of logical arguments presented by theists, Atheists make a number of claims, including "Which god?", and "Too many theist arguments to address", and when pressed
hard to address a specific argument, they either claim not to understand the issue, or they present demonstrable logical fallacies while making false claims of fallacy against the argument.
