XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: sbalneav@alburg.net   
      
   In alt.atheism TheInquirer  wrote:   
   > On 27/12/2012 1:36 AM, sbalneav wrote:   
   >> In alt.atheism TheInquirer  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >> So the article you originally posted, I feel, brings nothing new to the   
   table.   
   >> Saying: 'Why should "no Gods exist" be the default position' is just a fancy   
   >> way of attempting to shift the burden of proof.   
   >   
   >   
   > this assumes there is something to be shifted.  my approach, as an   
   > independent inquirer, is different.   
      
   And incorrect.   
      
   > Both parties have the burden of   
   > proof.   
      
   You're more than welcome to think that way, but over 2500 years of philosophy   
   have pretty conclusively decided that the person who asserts the positive has   
   the burden of proof.  The person who disbelieves the assertion has no   
   responsibility to prove the converse.  Indeed, when it comes to questions of   
   existence, proving that something DOESN'T exist is pretty nigh on impossible.   
   While absence of evidence is evidence of absence, it's not PROOF of absence.   
      
   That is why the majority of atheists are AGNOSTIC atheists.  It's an   
   acknowledgement of the fact that, regardless of how many 9's we place after the   
   decimal point, we can't be 100% sure.   
      
   This is, of course, seen most practically in Law.  One is not declared "Guilty"   
   or "Innocent".  One is declared "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".   
      
   > as for me, i don't have a viewpoint to peddle. i am not a   
   > "vendor", but rather a potential "customer".   
   >   
   > when i want to choose between buying a Samsung or an iPhone or other   
   > brand (or hell! try to make my own), i want to see which salesman   
   > can give me the best deal.  see?   
      
   This analogy fails on a couple of fronts.   
      
   First, while you may consider yourself a "customer", it doesn't necessarily   
   mean the atheist feels that they are a "vendor".  I have arrived at my   
   conclusions on my own.  If you arrive at the same conclusions as me, that's   
   great.  If you think the theists have a better argument, that's fine too, and I   
   may debate with you on that if you desire.  But I do not "increase my client   
   base" or "loose my client base" depending on which way you go, so long as   
   you're not infringing on any of my rights.  To quote Jefferson: "But it does me   
   no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither   
   picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  So, I generally don't have a stake in   
   deciding which way you go.  The iPhone or Android or whatever vendor certainly   
   does.   
      
   Secondly, while you personally may weigh the relative merits of belief systems,   
   or lack thereof, it doesn't change the fact that the atheist does not have a   
   burden of proof.  The atheists position is that the theist has not fulfilled   
   his or her burden of proof that a deity of some kind exists.  The atheist   
   simply has to point out to YOU that fact, as the justification of their   
   position.   
      
   --   
    __ _  | Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.   
   (_ |_) |   -- Andrew Sullivan   
   __)|_) |   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)