Quote:I think that the burden of proof, as well as the denial of the ism in atheism, is an attempt by fundamental atheists to make as many excuses as possible to avoid being honest about a number of things.
Oh dear,another face palm comment.
The concept of the burden of proof is universal in law, science and philosophy. It may or may not have been developed by people who were also atheists. It is NOT an 'atheist argument'; there is no such thing. By definition an atheist is only a person who disbelieves in god(s)
AS is your wont,once again you have succeeded in making yourself look deeply,willfully ignorant and rather stupid.
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Quote:The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by legal evidence.
The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges."[1] This is a statement of a version of the presumption of innocence that underpins the assessment of evidence in some legal systems, and is not a general statement of when one takes on the burden of proof. The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom, but does not always, as sometimes the consequences of accepting a statement or the ease of gathering evidence in its defense might alter the burden of proof its proponents shoulder. The burden may also be assigned institutionally.
He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.
The burden of proof is an especially important issue in law and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
Quote:Holder of the burden[/php]
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.[1] This burden does not demand a mathematical or strictly logical proof (although many strong arguments do rise to this level such as in logical syllogisms), but rather demands an amount of evidence that is established or accepted by convention or community standards.[2][3]
This burden of proof is often asymmetrical and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes either an ontologically positive claim, or makes a claim more "extraordinary",[4] that is farther removed from conventionally accepted facts.
[edit] Asymmetry in the burden of proof
For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof. However, the burden of proof will often be asymmetrical, meaning that it will fall harder on one side of an argument than the other. There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are
* How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).
* Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).
Other considerations might include:
* How independent is the claim of other suspect or controversial claims. The claim "fairies build houses in trees" is inextricably dependent upon the controversial claim "fairies exist".
This list of epistemic claims about fairies below serves to highlight some of the more important aspects of burden of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof
