NEVER even try argue with apologists, especially if you are out numbered; it's not safe..
I'm assuming your position is simply" I don't believe due to lack of evidence"
They're trying to shift the burden of proof. You need prove exactly nothing. They are the ones making the claims, they are the ones who need to prove their claims. That will be interesting,as no one in recorded history has yet managed that task.
They'll probably end up calling you a Nazi or a Communist. as they don't understand the difference. That's what mentally lazy and ignorant people tend to do. These are the offspring of such people but worse,they are just little parrots. You are thinking for yourself and they will hate you for that.
BUT if your position is "There is no God" or "I believe there is no God", you're fucked. Such a position also attracts the burden of proof. IE You DO have an obligation to provide evidence to support your claim.That has never been done so far either.
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof
I'm assuming your position is simply" I don't believe due to lack of evidence"
They're trying to shift the burden of proof. You need prove exactly nothing. They are the ones making the claims, they are the ones who need to prove their claims. That will be interesting,as no one in recorded history has yet managed that task.
They'll probably end up calling you a Nazi or a Communist. as they don't understand the difference. That's what mentally lazy and ignorant people tend to do. These are the offspring of such people but worse,they are just little parrots. You are thinking for yourself and they will hate you for that.
BUT if your position is "There is no God" or "I believe there is no God", you're fucked. Such a position also attracts the burden of proof. IE You DO have an obligation to provide evidence to support your claim.That has never been done so far either.
Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Quote: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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof
