It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Holder of the burden
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.
Originally posted by LuckyLucian
It's a common sense rule used in debates, discussions and scientific processes. The person that asserts something is true must show their proof, the person that asserts it is false questions the evidence, the process it was acquired, and refutes the findings, etc. It's from this interaction that the truth is discovered.
Yes, I do say there's no god. Until there is even the tiniest fraction of evidence there isn't even the remotest possibility I entertain the thought. I'm 32, not that it matters, the philosophical nature of things don't require a god, and we do live in the same world.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by satron
There are an infinite number of things that don't exist, who's nonexistence I am unable to prove. Your argument of a belief in a non-belief is redundant and absurd.
BTW, there is an equal amount of evidence that god and Santa are one in the same, as there is that god exists.
Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by graphuto
Ok, I gotcha. But I'm not twisting any words. Some people on the thread keep trying to play word games, specifically with the word belief, and I don't care to play. In context belief can have a religious meaning, in another it does not. Yet despite the fact that I'm not using the word, it's being put into my mouth by a person that is twisting words and playing word games.
It's simple to me. In my heart and mind and gut I know there's no god. Not believe. That my position is attacked with childish antics aggravates me to no end when I use the language clearly to say exactly what I mean. And then the word game starts again.
I'm not trying to win a debate. I'm just trying to discuss. Semantic and pragmatic nonsense was not my intent. That's why I quit responding.
Graphuto, are you of the belief that the OT laws were "repealed" at the crucifixion?
Originally posted by windword
Now, I am baffled by the Christians that tell me "just believe." "It's so simple to just believe!" No, it's not! Belief isn't something that be turned on or off with will. It isn't a pointy arrow that can be turned around. My belief is gone, non existent. Period.
I agree, and I call myself an agnostic atheist.
Originally posted by Annee
However - - every honest legitimate Atheist is also Agnostic. God can not be proven or dis-proven.
An Atheist doesn't know - - - - anymore then a believer knows.
Originally posted by graphuto
Yea, most definitions of atheism says "Doctrine or belief relating to the non existence of god."
James 2:18
English Standard Version (©2001)
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.