(March 8, 2017 at 7:52 am)AceBoogie Wrote: Sort of a burden of proof argument. It's hard to convince theists that the burden of proof lies on them. This is probably because theists are taught since they are very young that their way is true, without question. There is nothing to prove because they simply see things as being that way: That god is real and there is no need to prove His existence. They do not see it as a claim of god's existence, they see it as the fact of god's existence.
Unfortunately, one believing in something strongly is does not suffice in attempting to exclude it from the other multitudes of scientific claims that exist in the world. The claim that there is a divine intelligence that created existence itself is a scientific claim. To deny that claim is not necessarily a claim, in and of itself.
In every other area of life we tend to make claims as to how things are or were, not how things are not and were not. Yet theists feel the need to say that an absence of a claim is a claim in and of itself because that gives them a bit of an intellectual back door where they can start on the offensive instead of actually having to defend their beliefs (because who wants to do that? That takes effort).
So yea, I don't know where you guys live, but there's no bear in my backyard.
I would agree, that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I would disagree, however, that denying is not a claim in itself, and removes one from the burden of proof. The skeptical position is a neutral one, in which you are not confirming or denying (are not making any claims). There is a difference between doubt and denial.
