The "evidentialist challenge" is the gauntlet thrown down by atheist writers such as Antony Flew, Norwood Russell Hanson, and Michael Scriven.[1] They argue that in debates over the existence of God, the burden of proof should fall on the theist. They contend that if theists are unable to provide cogent arguments for theism, i.e. arguments showing that it is at least more probable than not that God exists, then atheism wins by default. It follows that atheists are under no obligation to argue for the nonexistence of God; their only task is to show that theistic arguments fail.

Some theistic philosophers gladly accept the challenge, eager to display what they think are powerful arguments for theism.[2] Others, such as Alvin Plantinga, reject evidentialism and deny that theists must bear any special epistemic burden in their debates with atheists.[3] Prof. Ralph McInerny goes a step further to argue that the burden of proof should fall on the unbeliever. Here I shall rebut Prof. McInerny's claim and argue that, in the context of public debate over the truth of theism, theists cannot shirk a heavy burden of proof.

The meaning of atheism is quite clear. At least, it should be to those of us genuinely interested in the subject. And yet, it is equally clear that the manner in which we ask the question greatly influences the answers we should expect to receive. During a recent visit to Pure Nothing, one of the recent additions to the Atheist Blogroll, I noticed a poll in the sidebar with some interesting responses.

Just about everyone is an atheist when it comes to other gods — the gods that other people believe in or that nobody believes in anymore. I’m an atheist because there's no reliable evidence for any god, or even for Jesus. There is also extensive evidence that Jesus and all gods are fictional characters — myths created mainly by primitive people who had little understanding of how our universe operates. We all like myths and other stories, but we don't have to believe them.