Justifying Atheism:
Many atheists claim, “It is the atheist who demands proof from the theist, not vice-versa.”¹ Such misguided
claims are designed to gloss over two important facts. First, atheists have a difficult if not impossible task in proving
that God does not exist (if they could you can be sure that they would). Second, atheists often use a double standard
in holding theistic claims to the scrutiny of logic and support (which is acceptable) but fail to do so with atheism
(which is unacceptable).

Failing to be logically consistent, many atheists attempt to abandon their intellectual responsibility of supporting their view.
But this is unacceptable and they must be able and willing to support their view too. Here are several reasons for this.

The need to justify atheism:

1. Stand alone: Like theism, atheism must rise or fall on its own. Contrary to what many atheists seem to hold, atheism
   is not right if the arguments for theism are proven wrong. Some atheists hold that if theistic arguments fail, atheism
   should be presumed true. This was espoused by former atheist Antony Flew.² In Flew’s words, “…the presumption
   of atheism stipulates that it is up to believers in the existence and activities of the gods or of God to provide good
   reason for believing rather than to unbelievers to provide positive reasons for not believing.”³

For example, let’s say Bob claimed the Yankees won the 2002 World Series and Frank claimed the winner was the Giants.
If Bob finds out that the Angles beat the Yankees in the postseason, knocking them out before the World Series, this would
not mean that Frank was correct. Frank’s claim rises and falls on its own. This is evident when we realize that it was the
Angels who won the 2002 World Series.

As philosopher William Rowe says, “…one must give reasons that would be sufficient to justify disbelief in God
if they constituted the only reasons we have that bear on the question of God’s existence.”⁴ Atheism is not right
by default. Atheism simply cannot be presumed true.

2. Rejection of theistic arguments: Simply rejecting or even refuting theistic arguments does not prove atheism nor disprove
   theism. Such a suggestion is absurd. Even if every argument for God’s existence is logically invalid, it does not follow that
   theism is false (or that atheism is then true). What follows is an unsupported theism not a disproved theism or a proven
   atheism. The distinction between a belief being unsupported versus disproved is significant. For instance, years ago,
   prior to the development of human flight, many people believed that it was possible for people to fly. Yet there was no
   support for this belief (those who set out to prove it scientifically believed it was possible before their conclusion
   enjoyed support). Thus, their conclusion was unsupported, though correct. A wrong conclusion is one that has been
   shown to be contrary to fact. Theism has not been shown to be contrary to fact. Simply lacking support would not be
   sufficient to show that theism is wrong. Fortunately, theism enjoys a wide range of support.
   
   
3. Other alternatives: A third reason atheism needs to have positive support is because even if theistic arguments are
   rejected or even demonstrated to be wrong, atheism is not the only alternative. Agnosticism is a legitimate option to
   theism. Thus, one must be justified in becoming an atheist instead of an agnostic.

Due to the three previous reasons atheism has a burden of proof. If the atheist is unable to provide a valid reason(s)
supporting atheism, then atheism falls into the category of blind faith and agnosticism remains a legitimate option
(to say nothing of theism).