• Isoprenoid
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Careful, many online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. That they have to prove the assertion: “There is no god.”

    The default position is that there is yet insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

    Edit: Thank you for the downvotes, you have provided me with further evidence that online atheists don’t understand that they have to prove a negative. Your butthurt fuels me.

      • Isoprenoid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        You have made the assertion, thus you have the burden of proof.

        “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” QED

          • Isoprenoid
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I wasn’t arguing for the existence of god.

            Let me break this down:

            • “There is a god.” --> Burden of proof
            • “There is no god.” --> Burden of proof
            • “Hey, man. I don’t know.” —> No burden of proof
            • Communist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn’t require evidence

              • Isoprenoid
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                8 months ago

                Negative claims require evidence.

                Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say “There are no structural issues with this building.” He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.

                Your Jedi mind tricks won’t work on me. 😜

                • Communist@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  That’s making a positive claim about a negative outcome. “There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.

                  This doesn’t work for god because there’s nothing to check, there’s never been any evidence for god, but there’s been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.