• Isoprenoid@programming.devEnglish
    419·
    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.

    • CommunistEnglish
      113·
      8 months ago

      This guy eats babies

      prove me wrong

      • Isoprenoid@programming.devEnglish
        82·
        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

        • CommunistEnglish
          101·
          8 months ago

          …Do you not realize that the same goes for god?

          • Isoprenoid@programming.devEnglish
            54·
            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
            • CommunistEnglish
              51·
              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@programming.devEnglish
                36·
                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. 😜

                • CommunistEnglish
                  21·
                  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.