Talk:Shifting the burden of proof

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
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)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox