Talk:Shifting the burden of proof
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | on 7 January 2009 was this sentence deleted: | ||
| + | "However, if a strong atheist makes the positive claim that no gods exist, then he or she has the burden of proving this claim. " | ||
| + | why? | ||
| + | |||
| + | and isn´t "A theist is someone who claims that there is a god." a bit incorrect? | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would propose something like the following: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "A (gnostic) theist who claims that there is a god has the burden of proof. An (gnostic) atheist who claims that there is no god has the burden of proof too. While the Agnostic theist/atheist would not claim anything in the first place, so they don´t have the burden of proof in a discussion" | ||
| + | |||
| + | But maybe I am just missing the point here, because I don´t understand what the "positive claim" means??? (I am german and basicly only understand the word positive and claim but not the combination) | ||
Revision as of 05:53, 10 October 2010
on 7 January 2009 was this sentence deleted: "However, if a strong atheist makes the positive claim that no gods exist, then he or she has the burden of proving this claim. "
why?
and isn´t "A theist is someone who claims that there is a god." a bit incorrect?
I would propose something like the following:
"A (gnostic) theist who claims that there is a god has the burden of proof. An (gnostic) atheist who claims that there is no god has the burden of proof too. While the Agnostic theist/atheist would not claim anything in the first place, so they don´t have the burden of proof in a discussion"
But maybe I am just missing the point here, because I don´t understand what the "positive claim" means??? (I am german and basicly only understand the word positive and claim but not the combination)
