(March 8, 2017 at 11:04 pm)AceBoogie Wrote:(March 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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.
Surely denying a claim is different than making a claim. To deny the existence of a bear in my backyard is certainly different than claiming that there is absolutely no bear in my backyard.
However, I am willing to make the claim that there is no bear in my backyard.
I am also willing to make the claim, based on a complete lack of evidence, that there is no god. At least not a christian god.
This is for all, but the last sentence I put in bold above is important.
This is because in this conversation, claims are being made and so they have a burden of proof that goes along with them. This is something that neo-scolastic has been trying to point out in a number of places recently, and is opposed to the other thread defining atheism as a mere lack of belief.
I think that it is important to acknowledge going forward here, that claims are being made, and that claiming evidence of absence is a position that needs to be supported. That going down this path, and falling back to a position of skepticism requires a retreat.
