ratgirl34
Xiam
ratgirl34
olive buffet
Burden of proof?
What is this? A trial?
Burden of proof also applies in a debate. The burden of proof lies on whoever the affirming party is. If I say that the sky is magenta, it is on me to prove that the sky is indeed magenta not on you to prove it isn't.
Incidentally, given the amount of colors the sky changes in the span of 24 hours, that's a fairly reasonable argument, and can be proven with a single photograph, or dragging people outside at sunset.
Then, of course, we have to get into semantics of what we mean by the color of the sky, what time of day or weather conditions we should determine as "natural state," what part of the world we should be judging for these criteria, what we even mean by "sky..." it's all pretty messy.
Just like the whole "god" debate.
And in either case it is the person asserting the claim that a thing is true who has the burden of proof.
You know... I can't even tell you how long I've observed the religious debate now, and... to this day, the "burden of proof" argument sounds to me like total bullshit.
Here's the thing. Two people assert a claim. For all the denial atheists put up, they're still asserting a claim. A
negative claim. Now, I'm no expert, so I'll have to go to
Wikipedia on this.
Quote:
When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false".
We can make a point that there are
some atheists who take the position of "I do not believe that X is true."
However, such individuals are not those who take the stance of "religion is a fairy tale," or "you are all delusional," or, quite simply, "There is no God."
To demand proof out of skepticism is one thing. To demand proof because you've already taken a negative position is an entirely different thing. I've
heard people assert that they represent the former, but more often than not I've
seen the latter occur.
Think about the assumptions we've made in the past, which turn out not to be true. The geocentric universe. The
heliocentric universe. The miasma theory. Phlogiston. The classic four elements. The four humors. The Out of Asia origin of humanity. The theory that vision is caused by the
projection of light from the eyes.
These were all disproven by further experimentation and evidence to the contrary, which presented new, more detailed and more highly predictive theories. Nobody
had to request the burden of proof from those who claimed it. Those theories were already in practice, already given their evidence and taken a place in the hold of science. It was the proof
against them that removed and replaced them as incorrect and outdated.
Therefore, I assert that the entire burden of proof argument is idiotic, and
incredibly lazy. It is a sign that you have nothing real to bring forward, and have therefore resorted to requesting that the opponent does all the research.
And I suggest that people step up their ******** game.
100
250
100
100
175
100