The Definitional Two-Step: How Atheists Redefined Their Position to Avoid Burden of Proof
(And Why Theists Should Return the Favor)
Abstract
Modern atheists have increasingly redefined their position from “the belief that God does not exist” to merely “a lack of belief in God.” This semantic shift conveniently exempts them from defending positive claims while maintaining all their critical ammunition against theism. This article demonstrates how theists can adopt identical definitional strategies, exposing the arbitrary nature of these rhetorical maneuvers and the intellectual dishonesty of asymmetric burden-of-proof games.
Introduction
“Theism is simply a lack of belief in godlessness. Atheists have no evidence that godlessness exists.”
If this opening statement strikes you as absurd wordplay, congratulations—you’ve just experienced what theists encounter when atheists claim they merely “lack belief in God” and therefore bear no burden of proof. This article explores how modern atheism’s definitional retreat from positive claims represents not philosophical sophistication but rhetorical gamesmanship, and demonstrates why consistent application of these tactics undermines the entire enterprise.
The Great Redefinition
Traditionally, the theism-atheism debate involved two competing positive claims:
Theism: The belief that God exists
Atheism: The belief that God does not exist
Both positions made assertions about reality. Both bore burden of proof. The debate was symmetrical and honest.
However, contemporary atheists increasingly define their position as merely “lacking belief in God”—a definition that appears to exempt them from defending any positive worldview. This allows atheists to attack theistic claims while retreating behind a defensive “I’m not claiming anything” stance when challenged to defend naturalism.
Turning the Tables
But if atheism can be redefined as mere “lack of belief,” why not redefine theism similarly? Consider:
Theism: A lack of belief in godlessness
This definition is logically equivalent to the atheist’s reformulation. Just as atheists claim they don’t assert God’s non-existence but merely lack belief in God, theists can claim they don’t assert God’s existence but merely lack belief in godlessness.
The symmetry is perfect:
Atheist: “I don’t claim God doesn’t exist; I just lack belief”
Theist: “I don’t claim God exists; I just lack belief in godlessness”
The Arsenal of Reversed Arguments
Once we adopt this definitional symmetry, the entire arsenal of modern atheist rhetoric becomes available to theists:
“Where’s your evidence?”
Atheist version: “Where’s your evidence for God?”
Theist reversal: “Where’s your evidence for godlessness?”
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Atheist version: “A supernatural deity is an extraordinary claim”
Theist reversal: “A universe springing from nothing, life from non-life, consciousness from unconscious matter, objective morality from amoral processes—these are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
Atheist version: Used selectively when defending lack of current natural explanations
Theist reversal: “The absence of evidence for godlessness is not evidence that godlessness is true”
“You can’t prove a negative”
Atheist version: “I can’t prove God doesn’t exist”
Theist reversal: “I can’t prove godlessness doesn’t exist”
“Show me an experiment”
Atheist version: “Show me an experiment that proves God exists”
Theist reversal: “Show me an experiment that proves God doesn’t exist”
The Burden of Proof Shell Game
When challenged on this redefinition, atheists often resort to special pleading. They’ll insist that theism must be defined traditionally (as positive belief) while maintaining their revisionist definition of atheism (as mere lack of belief). This double standard reveals the true nature of the maneuver: a tactical dodge, not a principled position.
Consider a typical exchange:
Atheist: “Atheists don’t claim godless creation exists, so we have no burden of proof.”
Response: “Really? So atheists don’t claim we live in a godless universe? They don’t assert naturalistic explanations? If atheists make no positive claims about reality, what distinguishes them from agnostics?”
The atheist faces a dilemma:
Admit atheism involves positive claims about reality (abandoning the definitional dodge)
Maintain they make no claims (becoming indistinguishable from agnosticism)
The Convergence of Evidence
While atheists play definitional games to avoid their burden of proof, theists can point to convergent evidence across multiple domains:
Cosmological: The contingency of the universe pointing to a necessary being
Fine-tuning: Constants improbably calibrated for life
Consciousness: The hard problem of subjective experience
Moral experience: Objective moral truths requiring a transcendent ground
Intelligibility: The universe’s rational structure accessible to rational minds
Information: Complex specified information in biological systems
Religious experience: Consistent reports across cultures and millennia
Meanwhile, the atheist worldview requires faith in:
Existence without cause
Order without orderer
Laws without lawgiver
Information without intelligence
Consciousness from unconsciousness
Meaning from meaninglessness
Why This Matters
This isn’t merely about winning debates through clever wordplay. The definitional shell game represents a broader problem in contemporary discourse: the substitution of rhetorical maneuvering for genuine philosophical engagement. When one side unilaterally redefines terms to gain tactical advantage, it poisons the well of rational discourse.
By demonstrating that these tactics work equally well in reverse, we expose them for what they are: empty rhetorical devices that contribute nothing to our understanding of ultimate questions. Real philosophical progress requires:
Honest definitions: Both theism and atheism make claims about reality
Symmetrical standards: Evidence requirements apply equally to all positions
Genuine engagement: Moving beyond tactical dodges to substantive arguments
Conclusion
The modern atheist redefinition of their position as mere “lack of belief” represents an abandonment of intellectual responsibility. It’s an attempt to maintain all the critical force of atheism while bearing none of its philosophical burden. But as we’ve seen, this definitional strategy is a two-way street. If atheists can avoid burden of proof by claiming to merely “lack belief in God,” then theists can equally claim to merely “lack belief in godlessness.”
The solution isn’t for both sides to retreat into definitional gamesmanship, but to return to honest engagement. Both theism and atheism are substantive positions about the nature of reality. Both make claims. Both bear burden of proof. Both deserve serious philosophical examination rather than rhetorical sleight of hand.
When atheists insist “the burden of proof cannot be shifted,” they reveal their own recognition that they’ve already shifted it through redefinition. It’s time to either play by consistent rules or abandon the game entirely in favor of genuine truth-seeking.
After all, fair is fair.
References
The arguments presented here emerged from dialectical engagement with common atheist rhetorical strategies. For those interested in the broader philosophical issues surrounding burden of proof, definitional disputes, and the substantive arguments for theism, the following resources provide deeper analysis:
Feser, E. (2017). Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Ignatius Press.
Flew, A. (2007). There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. HarperOne.
Koons, R. C., & Pickavance, T. H. (2017). The Atlas of Reality: A Comprehensive Guide to Metaphysics. Wiley-Blackwell.
Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press.
Pruss, A. R., & Rasmussen, J. (2018). Necessary Existence. Oxford University Press.
Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.