(May 4, 2016 at 12:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(May 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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.
That would certainly be a lot less work for you rather than demonstrate your positive claim to be true, wouldn't? I can see why it appeals to you.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
