(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.
However, I as an atheist am not claiming that something is false. I'm asking you (or whoever) to demonstrate that it's true. I am making no claims in this area, so I have nothing to prove.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
