Anyone interested in me explaining the burden of proof fallacy?

I've seen quite a few questions and answers telling atheists that they have to prove God doesn't exist. Allow me to explain why this is flawed. Let's say the police stop you on the side of the road one day. I point you out and say "He took $100 from me." You know full well you never took... show more I've seen quite a few questions and answers telling atheists that they have to prove God doesn't exist. Allow me to explain why this is flawed.

Let's say the police stop you on the side of the road one day. I point you out and say "He took $100 from me." You know full well you never took that money from me, but you just happened to have $100 in your pocket.

You're arrested, and taken to trial. At trial, you show your ATM receipt for $100, and the film footage of you at the ATM. However, because you cannot prove that the $100 bills you have are the same ones that you took from the ATM, you're convicted and charge guilty.

Does that sound fair to you? After all, you know you didn't take $100 from me, but I still accused you of taking the money.

That's the same logic you're using when you claim it's the atheists that have to prove god. You're telling atheists that we took your $100, even though you can't prove it. It's a logical fallacy.

So next time you think about asking an atheist "prove God doesn't exist," think about the $100 bill.

Are there any other fallacies that need to be explained?
Update: Mark Delivers. Mark, you see. By me asking you to prove that God exists is the exact same thing as me saying to you "Prove to me that I stole your $100 bill." You see? See how natural that is? You make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. The default position is to say I didn't take... show more Mark Delivers.

Mark, you see. By me asking you to prove that God exists is the exact same thing as me saying to you "Prove to me that I stole your $100 bill."

You see? See how natural that is? You make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. The default position is to say I didn't take your $100 bill. I don't expect you to understand.
Update 2: @NoltAll: I can actually throw a mound of evidence on you talking about how fallible eye-witness testimonies actually are. And, did you just suggest that you saw god? That sounds a lot like a delusion. Of course, personal testimonies aren't considered evidence either, as they are not verifiable.
Update 3: @Doctor: Nice try, but you're committing the same fallacy. There is no evidence of a designer. The null position would actually be a naturalistic explaination.
Update 4: @LoveLaceIn Your Face: Fallacy - Appeal to Tradition. Just because something is tradition does not constitute evidence. Humans strive to understand. They strive for knowledge. The Argument from Ignorance pretty much ruled man-kinds thoughts since the begining of our species. When we didn't know, we assigned... show more @LoveLaceIn Your Face: Fallacy - Appeal to Tradition. Just because something is tradition does not constitute evidence.

Humans strive to understand. They strive for knowledge. The Argument from Ignorance pretty much ruled man-kinds thoughts since the begining of our species. When we didn't know, we assigned that phenomena to some gods. Now we have a falsifiable, self-correcting method to discover the natural world.
Update 5: @Dark: We're discussing the neutral position of lack of belief. Those that make the claim that a god exists, must show evidence of it. If they cannot, it would be fallacious to think there was on there word alone. The default position to take is a lack of belief. If I make the claim that you stole my $100 bill,... show more @Dark: We're discussing the neutral position of lack of belief. Those that make the claim that a god exists, must show evidence of it. If they cannot, it would be fallacious to think there was on there word alone. The default position to take is a lack of belief. If I make the claim that you stole my $100 bill, I would have to show evidence of that. If I can't, it's assume that I did not steal the $100 bill.

As for circumstantial evidence, I can verify my own funds (as I have done so with the receipt). This is enough to disqualify his circumstantial evidence. However, in bizarro-wacko world where you are guilty until innocent, I cannot prove that the $100 bill I have is separate from his alleged stolen $100. Normally, I would be innocent because he cannot prove that my $100 bill is HIS $100 bill.

It's a flawed analogy, as all are. However, it best explains the idea of Burden of Proof.
Update 6: @LoveLace: Again. Burden of Proof. You're claiming that personal testimony. Unless you have evidence this actually happened to you, it's unverifiable, and can be dismissed. I'm fairly certain there is something more definitive to explain personal testimony. "Delusions" are thoughts of... show more @LoveLace: Again. Burden of Proof. You're claiming that personal testimony. Unless you have evidence this actually happened to you, it's unverifiable, and can be dismissed. I'm fairly certain there is something more definitive to explain personal testimony.

"Delusions" are thoughts of things that do not exist in reality. A deity would be such a thing. The religious generally believe in deities.

Appeal to Ignorance: Just because you can't explain the phenomenon, does not automatically make it the work of a deity.
21 answers 21