DefinePK

Abstract

This paper critically examines the misuse of the "burden of proof" concept within contemporary atheist discourse, focusing on influential figures such as Armin Navabi, Todd C. Moody, David Silverman, and Peter Boghossian. Utilizing Shoaib Malik’s philosophical distinctions between ontological and epistemological claims, this analysis challenges atheists’ redefinition of atheism as merely "lack of belief" rather than an explicit denial of God's existence. Such redefinitions, achieved through semantic fusion and morphological fission, allow atheists to evade evidentiary responsibilities while implicitly advancing strong ontological assertions. By dissecting arguments from prominent atheist voices, this paper demonstrates that agnosticism—not atheism—is the more appropriate default position in the absence of compelling evidence. Furthermore, global atheism, characterized by its broad rejection of all deity concepts, carries a significant but often overlooked epistemic burden. This study advocates restoring conceptual clarity to the discourse on theism, atheism, and agnosticism, emphasizing intellectual consistency and accountability