(July 7, 2012 at 5:13 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Since when is asserting a negative a "positive claim"? That's ridiculous.
If a person is found dead with no signs of murder at all, but somebody believes I murdered that person and I positively assert that I didn't murder them, it is not up to me to prove that the person wasn't murdered and that I didn't do it. It's up to them to prove that the person was murdered and then that I did it.
Same goes if I positively assert that Uranus isn't populated by a cannibalistic race bearing an uncanny resemblance to Winnie The Pooh and the burden of proof would lie with any person claiming it is.
The fact that the claim you're making is in relation to what you say isn't true about gods makes it no less your claim. As the one asserting it isn't so, it is certainly up to you to show you are correct. To say there are no gods you will need a clear idea of what gods are before you can show what they are not. Do you have that knowledge or don't you? If you don't, you're in no better position than any theist to support what it is you are asserting about gods.
My old epistemology professor would have said any assertion regarding something non-existent fails as a proposition. I disagreed with him because, to my mind, the assertion "unicorns did not trample my garden again today" conveys an obvious meaning and even happens to be true. So he might have taken your side, since you haven't really said anything at all if gods don't exist. Perhaps you therefore owe no burden of proof. Then again, the claims of theists pertain to the same (we think) non-existent entities so should they too get a pass?
To my mind, if we want to go on requiring objective evidence for statements intended to get us to give up what we believe, then we must abide by the same standard.
