I don't really like how the"burden of proof thing" is used by most people. I mean some just throw it out and expect the other part to do all the talking.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".
As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.
No, this is not the case. If two people are talking and one says he is an atheist and the other says he is a theist, the burden of proof should fall on the person who challenges the oposite belief.
I see this as a tool used to make people argument their position . If I make a statement and you say it is false you have to argument it, but in order for me too disprove your argumentation I need too make an argument, I can't say " no this is certainly false".
As for the intellectual dishonesty , it depends on what you claim.
