I can understand why it can be seen as a lazy get-out clause but maybe it helps to think of it as a burden of effort.
Take Huggy's recent claims in the Odin thread about there being photographic proof of his god's work. He did not present the evidence before then telling us that we needed to now find ways to counter his claims. That was deliberately intended to put us in an impossible situation. How can we refute something when we don't even know what we're supposed to be refuting? He was trying to make it look like we couldn't refute his claims because they could not be refuted rather than because he had not provided any details. So we pushed for him to provide evidence. He finally acquiesced and then it became trivial to point out why it was complete and utter bullshit.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53753-p...pid1712968
Take Huggy's recent claims in the Odin thread about there being photographic proof of his god's work. He did not present the evidence before then telling us that we needed to now find ways to counter his claims. That was deliberately intended to put us in an impossible situation. How can we refute something when we don't even know what we're supposed to be refuting? He was trying to make it look like we couldn't refute his claims because they could not be refuted rather than because he had not provided any details. So we pushed for him to provide evidence. He finally acquiesced and then it became trivial to point out why it was complete and utter bullshit.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53753-p...pid1712968
