Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[RoadRunner79]

---

What you suppose about me, my intentions or my character has nothing to do with the arguments which you mostly ignored. Arguments and reasons are just as valid, whether they come from a PHD, a bum on the street, an atheist or a Christian.  You seem to be going out in all directions, to avoid what is being discussed about the OP.  I'm not falling for that bait!

The burden of proof simply states that one making a claim is responsible for supporting that claim.  Both sides in a discussion can have their own burden of proof for opposing claims.  However for the one who is not making a claim, doubt is the default position, until sufficient reason to confirm or deny is provided.  This is because the default position is ignorance, and the skeptic isn't required to justify their doubt.  They are not accepting as true, or denying as false, without reason to do so.

And as I stated before, if by "deny", you really mean "doubt", and are not making a claim, then I agree with you, but perhaps you should choose your words more wisely.

As to the claim that I am shifting the burden of proof; we can easily test this.   You just need to provide the claim of mine (in the context of this discussion), which I am not answering, but saying that you must show it is false.  You on the other hand, seem to want to deny and make claims, and expect me to accept them, until I prove you wrong.   So who is "shifting the burden of proof"

---

Jesus fucking christ. You should be a politician.

This is like talking to a wall.

Honestly, let's clear the mud here. What exactly is your point rr? What is it you're trying to say? Let's start all over so we can really get down to what it is that you're trying to convince us of here.

You're saying that denying a claim is the same as making a claim, right?

In the mean time, watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

I bolded your statement above.... this is a correct assessment of what I am saying (as I have stated previously).  

Denying or saying that something is false, is making a claim, and carries with that a burden of proof.  You are taking a position, and are thus required to support that position.
Doubt or skepticism on the other hand is neutral or a lack of a position.   You are neither confirming or denying the thing in question.  This doesn't carry a burden of proof, and doesn't require justification.  This is because you are not really saying anything about the object in question but about yourself.

If you are making a claim, then you have a burden of proof.  Pointing this out is not shifting the burden of proof.  If you are merely expressing doubt and not making a claim, then that doesn't need supported.  

I watched a little bit of the video.... Off hand, I didn't see anything that goes against what I am saying.   However if they are saying that you can make a claim, and not have a burden of proof, they are incorrect.

For your reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism

If you don't want to believe me, I would suggest that you do some research, and think through why the burden of proof is what it is.