(May 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(May 3, 2016 at 6:18 pm)Wryetui Wrote: No, your claim is "Christianity is a lie" (and not only, also Islam, Judaism and the other religions of the world) and that needs evidence. If you are calling someone a liar you should be based on something, right?
No, that's your projection. Think of it in a courtroom situation - the only position held by the attorney for the defence is "the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence against my client to meet the burden of proof". Sure, if Joe Blow didn't do it someone else must have,but that's neither the purview of the defence nor the issue under discussion.
Theists have a burden of proof, since they are the ones with something to prove. Atheists, in matters pertaining to atheism, do not.
I really can't make it any simpler without using crayons.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim. I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this. Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.
