Burden of proof
The following is a passage from George H. Smith's Why Atheism?
Suppose that a person who believes in the existence of invisible elves (let us call him an "elfist") does not have the sole burden of proof, and that a person who does not believe in their existence (an "aelfist") has an equal responsibility to prove that invisible elves do not exist. "Granted," says the elfist, "I cannot offer even a scintilla of evidence to support my claim, so I do not expect the aelfist to believe as I do. Nevertheless, the aelfist cannot prove me wrong: He cannot prove that invisible elves do not exist. If the aelfist cannot see what I do, this is because he does not have the faith that is necessary if one is to perceive invisible elves. For these elves, sensitive critters that they are, will not reveal themselves to skeptics and disbelievers. You must have faith, you must first believe that they exist, before you can see them as I do. If the aelfist does not wish to make this commitment of faith, then that is his right, but it is not his right to dismiss my belief as unjustified merely because I cannot prove what I say. On the contrary, since the aelfist cannot prove that my elves do not exist, his disbelief is no more justified than my belief.
It of course is meant to show that the theist has the burden of proof when claiming the existence of a god, but I tend to think it equally shows that those who believe in the legitimacy of government (talking compulsory government here, not some sort of voluntary organization) also have the burden of proof because they're demanding the acceptance of an entity that necessarily violates certain natural rights (at a minimum, it uses compulsory taxation and forcible prevention of competing defense organizations and legal systems). It seems like those who advocate such a coercive entity have a lot of splainin' to do.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!