Is the burden of proof on theists, to prove the existence of God, or on the atheists, to prove the non-existence of God?

Alan Roebuck writes:

My essay, “Theism vs Atheism: What’s at Stake,” has been published at Intellectual Conservative. In it, I clarify and expand on my earlier essay “How to Respond to a Supercilious Atheist,” bringing out the point that most atheistic apologists assume but do not prove, that materialism or naturalism is the correct way to interpret all phenomena. Having made this assumption, they then declare that no valid evidence whatsoever for God exists, when in fact they are viewing the world through atheist-colored glasses. This essay, unlike the previous one, explicitly argues that atheism supports liberalism.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 18, 2009 04:28 PM | Send