(April 3, 2019 at 10:36 am)Acrobat Wrote: The dishonesty is imagining that you have no burden of proof when making such a claim.
It’s like a holocaust denier claiming the holocaust didn’t happen, and proclaiming he has no burden of proof to demonstrate this, only those who claim it did, do.
The burden of proof resides with the one making the positive claim of something existing when there is no evidence of its existence.
That is literally how burden of proof works in relation to religious subjects.
If I was to state that leprechauns do not exist, it would be absurd to claim that the burden of proof is to prove something doesn't exist.
If it doesn't exist, obviously it doesn't exist and the burden only resides on the one making the claim of existence.
