Agnostic and gnostic atheism aren't real positions. And literally every position has the burden of proof. There is no position which lacks the burden of proof.
-
-
It's a legal standard which has nothing to do with philosophical arguments and both atheists and theists are affirming a position.
-
Ok, what's fascinating is that you appear to be doing what that link is calling a fallacy, that is denying that you have the burden of proof for your position. It's wrong for theists to argue that they don't have the burden of proof, but it's also wrong for atheists to do so.
-
I have not denied that I have burden of proof for my position. I have denied that atheism necessitates a burden of proof since not all atheism necessarily rests upon the positive claim of the non-existence of divinity.
-
Atheism necessitates the burden of proof because literally every position necessitates the burden of proof. Agnosticism necessitates the burden of proof as well.
-
You: Santa Claus is real! Me: I don't believe you... You: PROVE IT!!!
-
And you can do that pretty easily. It's a strong position to take with a lot of very strong arguments for it.
-
"The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, NOT on the person who denies (or questions) the claim."
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.