(June 29, 2018 at 11:42 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(June 29, 2018 at 10:28 am)Mathilda Wrote: On here? I haven't seen that myself but I am happy to be proved wrong. The whole point of a burden of proof is to determine whether a claim is true. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand what they were saying?
Yes.... actually I think only on here have I seen this. I think that what was confusing them is that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim of truth. Which was interpreted to mean that you can say something is false, without having to give reason for that claim. But in claiming that it is false, you are making a claim about objective truth.
And to clarify, I'm not trying to point fingers and I'm not saying that this applies to all atheists. I'm not as concerned with what has happened in the past, but the future. Talking about the definition of "atheist" doesn't get you out of a claim that you just made. Would you agree?
OK this is starting to make more sense.
Are you sure that they weren't actually disputing your evidence and you took this as them asserting the opposite of what you were claiming?
