As far as what an atheist is, I back what Adrian said. As far as the Urey Miller experiment, theVoid nailed it.
As far as Burden of Proof goes, when you make a positive claim you have the burden of proof. It can be tricky to figure out which claims are "positive". Hopefully I can make that clear to you.
So if you claim there is a god, you have the positive claim and if I reject that claim I make a negative claim, therefore I don't have to prove my position, you do. If I claim there are no god(s), then I am making a positive claim, and if you reject that claim, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe in Jesus de facto. It just means you reject the claim that there are no gods. So in essence, when you posit something, you then have the burden of proof, and the one rejecting your claim does not unless they posit something of their own. Does that clear up the issue for you?
As far as Burden of Proof goes, when you make a positive claim you have the burden of proof. It can be tricky to figure out which claims are "positive". Hopefully I can make that clear to you.
So if you claim there is a god, you have the positive claim and if I reject that claim I make a negative claim, therefore I don't have to prove my position, you do. If I claim there are no god(s), then I am making a positive claim, and if you reject that claim, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe in Jesus de facto. It just means you reject the claim that there are no gods. So in essence, when you posit something, you then have the burden of proof, and the one rejecting your claim does not unless they posit something of their own. Does that clear up the issue for you?
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
