Burden of Proof

[Minimalist]

So no one so far has A problem with that definition, or even clearly stated that by that definition "burden of proof" is by that definition is an axiom, or even seriously challenged my contention that it is not by that definition so far. The feeling I get is that most atheist want it taken as an axiom it practice whether it is an axiom or not. I'm going to leave it another while to give others a chance to contribute before I attempt to move the conversation further to the logical implications of this in the debates we tend to be involved in.

You know, I don't know where you think you are going with this but Bertrand Russell has already done a much better job than you could ever hope to do.

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time