(July 27, 2009 at 11:27 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The burden of proof is on the positive belief without evidence.
There needs to be evidence for God first, before there can be evidence against him.
I am not claiming, for instance, that God is disproved or definitely doesn't exist. I would argue, that I have no evidence for God, and I don't know of anyone who does - so there's no rational reason for me to believe in him untill I have any, and others cannot rationally believe either, untill they have any.
EvF
The burden of proof is on both hypothesis, so it's "irrational" either way.