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.
-
-
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."
-
The burden of proof is on *every person* taking a position. Both the pro-santa and anti-santa positions have the burden of proof.
-
- ________ -
-
This is how burden of proof in argumentation works.
-
It isn't, but okay.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I claim that rejection of divinity due to a lack of proof is not the same as claiming the non-existence of divinity yet it is atheism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.