I may be catching your drift, Fr0d0. I think you are seemingly being obtuse to make a point. Namely, if we atheists bear no burden for disbelieving in gods, then neither do you for doing the opposite. This could be summarized as
"that which can be dismissed without reason, can also be claimed without one."
Interesting. What follows should be some bickering over who holds 'the burden'. But, from your perspective, why should you justify your positive assertion to those who put so little effort into their casual negation. Kind of an object lesson to us. Okay, fair enough.
I personally don't harbor the notion that one should attempt to justify every single one of his beliefs. Indeed I don't think this is possible. Whether or not someone should have to justify his belief in gods to atheists would seem to be precisely your bone of contention. in a debate one scores points for justifying ones assertions, but whether or not "debating" is what we are doing here is itself debatable. It can be. Should it be? If I answer no, should I have to back that up with evidence?
"that which can be dismissed without reason, can also be claimed without one."
Interesting. What follows should be some bickering over who holds 'the burden'. But, from your perspective, why should you justify your positive assertion to those who put so little effort into their casual negation. Kind of an object lesson to us. Okay, fair enough.
I personally don't harbor the notion that one should attempt to justify every single one of his beliefs. Indeed I don't think this is possible. Whether or not someone should have to justify his belief in gods to atheists would seem to be precisely your bone of contention. in a debate one scores points for justifying ones assertions, but whether or not "debating" is what we are doing here is itself debatable. It can be. Should it be? If I answer no, should I have to back that up with evidence?
