(August 10, 2013 at 8:59 am)Stimbo Wrote: An atheist who makes the claim that any god/s do not exist does indeed bear the burden of proof just as heavily as a theist who claims that god/s do exist.
Good luck finding an atheist who makes that claim around here.
Either there is an atheist who make the claim around here (e.g. Maelstrom) or there is none is irrelevant.
Ok, so we're agree about the burden of proof above.
Let's continue. We seem to agree that there is no evidence of God existence/non-existence. I don't claim to know that God exists and you don't claim to know that God does not exists. So we both agnostic.
Despite there is no evidence either way, I choose to be a theist (agnostic theist) because there is a reason for that (I've mentioned the reason before).
Despite there is no evidence either way, you choose to be an atheist. If this is true, what's your reason? If you said that "by default" (no evidence either way) the rational position is disbelief, then why you embrace this "default" view? If you have no reason, than I can say that this "default view" of yours is a dogmatic position. What will you say to theist who embrace the opposite dogmatic "default" view?
(August 10, 2013 at 9:02 am)Maelstrom Wrote:(August 10, 2013 at 8:55 am)Theo Zacharias Wrote: Ok, let's talk about the burden of proof.
In my opinion, the burden or proof is for:
1) Theist who claims to know that God exist
2) Atheist who claims to know that God does not exist
Do you agree with the above?
No. The burden of proof is not on the atheist, for there is already zero evidence in support of god's existence. Claiming that the atheist is the one who must prove that something does not exist is shifting the burden of proof, a logical fallacy. Besides, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to prove the non-existence of something for which there is zero evidence. If there is no evidence, the logical assumption is that it does not exist.
Any reference for you logical assumption above?
I found a reference that said the opposite. Just search on Google for "argument from ignorance".
Remember that for me the burden of proof is to both theist and atheist (who make the claims to know something). Your view is burden of proof is on theist only (even for atheist who makes claim to know something).
It sounds to me that you're the one who shift the burden of proof from both theist & atheist to theist only.
(August 10, 2013 at 9:02 am)Maelstrom Wrote: That out of the way, it is up to the theist making the positive claim for which there is no evidence to prove the claim that god exists.
An irrational theist can say/force the opposite thing to you without any reason:
"That out of the way, it is up to the atheist making the negative claim for which there is no evidence to prove the claim that God does not exist."
Please backup any statement with argument/reason or I will keep making the same response.
