(March 8, 2018 at 8:45 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(March 8, 2018 at 8:13 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote: 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.
If the atheist is simply saying they don't believe in God, then they have no burden of proof to bear. That is solely on the theist making the claim "God exists".
If, however, the atheist is saying they do believe God does not exist, then they do bear some burden, but still not as much as the theist.
I see your point , but what bothers me is that some just use this to avoid providing an argument wich in fact is contradictory. I think the burden of proof is a statement that clearly says people should back up their stance with an argument.
