With respect to the Atheism vs Theism debate: Atheists assert that the theist carries the burden of proof. Very well. Let’s accept that position.

This, though, begs the question:

Proof of what?

Well…God, obviously.

This begs another question, perhaps with an answer not as obvious:

God…as opposed to what?

Well…NOT God…and this is as specific as we can get from the position of atheism, because ATHEISM, by definition, is not actually proposing anything. It’s not a belief; it’s not a belief system; and these people are all too happy to remind us of this every time we try to pin them down.

But “NOT God” is not actually a thing, of course. So, here is the problem with atheists casting the burden of proof upon the theist:

One cannot provide proof or evidence against a null (i.e. NOT God). Therefore, if the atheist demands that the burden of proof be on the theist, then the atheist is on the hook for providing a SPECIFIC alternative so that the theist has some kind of frame of reference for his own argument. He needs to know what his proof is being judge against, SPECIFICALLY…otherwise he has NO frame of reference for what is supposed to constitute proof. 

To wit: The atheist says to the theist “You must provide proof of God to me.” 

Since the debate is a metaphysical one—because “God” by definition is metaphysical in nature, and a metaphysical proposition—then the theist is allowed to ask the atheist what he means by “me”. 

If the atheist has no definition of “me”—of “man”, of “he who is receiving (and by extension, giving) proof”, or his definition is irrational or incomplete —then his request for “proof” is irrelevant. Without a rational definition of he who is to receive the proof, then to provide the proof is redundant. 

The atheist’s definition of “me” here would be rooted specifically in his metaphysical understanding of reality, which he wouldHAVE to possess in order to determine that “God” was an illegitimate metaphysical concept. Thus again, if the theist bears the burden of proof, then the atheist is on the hook for providing a SPECIFIC alternative sothat the theist can know what his proof is being judge against, otherwise, again, he has NO frame of reference for what is supposed to constitute proof. 

What alternative shall the atheist provide?

Well, an alternative “god”…meaning an alternative metaphysical primary (because that is what God is—a metaphysical primary).

In fact, the atheist MUST possess an alternative metaphysical primary BEFORE he can even reject God in the first place…because to reject God without possessing a specific alternative (but instead simply coming to the debate with a “NOT belief”) means that the atheist is rejecting God for LITERALLY NO REASON AT ALL…based upon a NULL argument…a “NOT belief”.

This constitutes an inexorable rational and argumentative contradiction.

Now, here comes the irony:

The atheist’s failure to present and defend an alternative metaphysical primary makes him, in fact, NOT actually an atheist, but at best an agnostic, and his presence in the debate thus is pointless. And if he DOES present an alternative metaphysical primary then he is NOT actually an atheist, but is, in fact, a believer…a “disciple”…of whatever metaphysical primary he asserts (e.g. the Laws of Physics, or the Mathematical Universe, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster…or whatever).

Conclusion: There is no such thing as an atheist. No such truly relevant thing. 

Ironic. Again. 

Atheists—name your belief and defend it.