Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Burden of Proof

tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:08:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
[This is a repost. I asked the mods to move it but they didn't, so I'm posting it here instead].

http://www.debate.org...

In the past, the general consensus on DDO has been that (with the exception of Geo), atheists believe theists have the BOP and theists believe that the BOP is shared. I've been thinking about this a lot over the past couple of days and I'm starting to question my previous stance (which was that theists have the BOP).

Let's say you and I are standing in an empty room. We both recognize that the room is empty. Neither of us have to convince the other that this room is empty because we both already believe. Conversely, if the room is empty except for a table in the middle, and we both recognize that there is table in the middle of the room, neither of us have to convince the other that there is a table in the middle of the room because we both see it is there.

Now let's imagine that for whatever reason, one of us sees a table in the room and the other doesn't. The one who sees the table believes the other to be blind, but the one who does not see the table believes the other to be mentally ill.

Our society tends to measure things in relation to other people. So if, in a room, 100 people see a table and 1 person doesn't, then that 1 person is said to be blind. If 1 person sees a table and 100 people don't, then that 1 person is said to be mentally ill.

So would whoever has the BOP rely on an initial assumption, ie. the assumption of the majority? What if 50 people see the table and 50 people do not?
yang.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
WARNING: This thread will soon be a shitstorm! Turn back while you still can!
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:41:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
BOP is on the person making a positive claim. If I claim an invisible dragon lives in my garage, is the BOP on you to prove I don't? Isn't it illogical to place the BOP on someone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable hypothesis?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:44:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:41:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
BOP is on the person making a positive claim. If I claim an invisible dragon lives in my garage, is the BOP on you to prove I don't? Isn't it illogical to place the BOP on someone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable hypothesis?

The Burden of Proof is usually the one making a claim against the STAUS QUO.

The reason why the Burden of Proof is on the atheists is because most people in the U.S believe in God. It is accepted.

It is like the time where everyone thought the earth was flat. The first people to say the earth was not flat had a heavy Burden of proof since it was against the STATUS QUO.

It makes sense for the other side too since very few will claim what is the status quo since it is already accepted. Its like claiming Barack Obama is the current president of the U.S, accepted no real Burden of Proof there.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:51:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Now let's imagine that for whatever reason, one of us sees a table in the room and the other doesn't. The one who sees the table believes the other to be blind, but the one who does not see the table believes the other to be mentally ill.
The tableist has four other senses to deal with for proving that the table exists.

The atableist doesn't know where the "table" is and thus how to prove it isn't there.

The tableist, making the positive claim, is the one equipped to deal with Burden of Proof.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:52:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Burden of Proof is usually the one making a claim against the STAUS QUO.
That's in policy debates, not issues of fact.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:54:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:51:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now let's imagine that for whatever reason, one of us sees a table in the room and the other doesn't. The one who sees the table believes the other to be blind, but the one who does not see the table believes the other to be mentally ill.
The tableist has four other senses to deal with for proving that the table exists.

The atableist doesn't know where the "table" is and thus how to prove it isn't there.

The tableist, making the positive claim, is the one equipped to deal with Burden of Proof.

Not to say that negative proofs are impossible or anything, just harder.

More importantly: If the burden of proof is on the atableist, then, given the number of people in the world, we are bound to believe that tables are nearly EVERYWHERE until proven otherwise. Many of these tables will contradict each other.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:54:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:52:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Burden of Proof is usually the one making a claim against the STAUS QUO.
That's in policy debates, not issues of fact.

Issues of fact when a solidified position become policy. So my point still stands.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 5:57:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The burden of proof is entirely dependent on the claim itself, and not on the number of people who hold it. In the case of your table, the number of people who believe that there's a table in the room is entirely irrelevant to the truth of the claim that there's a table in the room.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god. It is not necessarily a belief in no god (though it can be) and unless an atheist asserts that there are no gods or deities (in a general sense, not a religious sense) an atheist doesn't need to prove that position.

Theism on the other hand is a belief in god and theists do assert the existence of their god, thus theists always have to provide an argument for the existence of god.

When atheists who don't assert that no gods (in the general sense) exist argue against a specific religion's god, then they have to provide an argument against the existence of that god but they don't need to provide an argument for why no gods exist.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:00:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:41:24 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
BOP is on the person making a positive claim. If I claim an invisible dragon lives in my garage, is the BOP on you to prove I don't? Isn't it illogical to place the BOP on someone who doesn't believe in an unfalsifiable hypothesis?


The BOP is on the person making the claim, if they have any reason to prove what they are claiming.

If the majority of people accept and agree with the claim the person is making (having a similar claim, or having seen the proof), why would any person care to prove it to the minority?

As a Christian, I believe there is no logical way to convince anyone of God's existence. Not that God is illogical, but all people would prefer to either invent their own God, or ignore the God's they don't like.

I believe only God can reveal the truth to a person, and the means in which he does that, is with the holy spirit, by reading of the Word. If a person reads the bible, and cannot understand it, or doesn't think anything of it.. there is 0 chance of a man convicing them of it.

BOP, is pointless to me. I could care less what any person (thinks) they need in order to believe.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:29:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even in the God debate, the burden of proof should depend on the subject of discussion. If the subject is "God exists", then it is on the theist. If it's "God does not exist", then it's on the atheist. If it's "Does God exist??", then it's a shared BoP.

Atheists fall back on the theists as a way to avert BoP on themselves, claiming that you can't disprove a negative. First of all, starting under the assumption that God is a negative, without first establishing that as fact, is nothing more than an unfounded presupposition. It's not a credible statement. Secondly, not my problem. By entering the argument, you take a side, and cannot take a side without making a claim. If you enter an arguement against God's existence, then you're saying that God doesn't exist. The difficulty in proving that claim is not our problem. You made the claim, and you believe it so there must be some reason why.

On disproving a negative, in most arguments about God's existence it can be done. It can be done, not by disproving God, but by proving your own "positive" assertions about a natural explanation. That, in turn, would disprove the need for God. Prove how the universe got here. Prove how intelligent life got here. Prove how life adapted to the conditions, instead of vice versa (fine tuning). If life adapts to the conditions, then life should adapt to many other conditions even though those conditions wouldn't be favorable for us, right?? So prove that life has adapted to other conditions and you'll have eliminated the entire fine tuning argument, and gone a long way to winning over most people. Those things don't require you to disprove a negative, or prove a negative, or however you want to say it. All it requires is that you prove your own assertions. Ya know, the very same thing that you make fun of us for not being able to do for you.

Until you can do that, it is illogical to write off as irrational, the only worldview that can provide answers to questions of origins, just because you don't like, or don't understand, our answer.

That's my take on BoP, and how I think it's misused in the God debate.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:36:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It depends on the claim being made. Wording is everything. Like if an atheist said "There is no god." that is a positive claim therefore must be proven just like how a theist would have to prove "there is a god."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:36:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
It depends on the claim being made. Wording is everything. Like if an atheist said "There is no god." that is a positive claim therefore must be proven just like how a theist would have to prove "there is a god."

So if I said "there is no table" I would have the burden of proof? How do you prove that something isn't there?
yang.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:50:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

Strong atheism does therefore they have a BOP.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:50:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

Strong atheism does therefore they have a BOP.

No. The "assertion" is based on the lack of assertions that the other side asserts, therefore making it so the assertion is not really an assertion.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:53:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 5:54:16 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 5:52:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The Burden of Proof is usually the one making a claim against the STAUS QUO.
That's in policy debates, not issues of fact.

Issues of fact when a solidified position become policy. So my point still stands.

Yeah.. not what he meant.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:50:02 PM, tulle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:36:59 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
It depends on the claim being made. Wording is everything. Like if an atheist said "There is no god." that is a positive claim therefore must be proven just like how a theist would have to prove "there is a god."

So if I said "there is no table" I would have the burden of proof? How do you prove that something isn't there?

That is just a excuse for the claim that was made. We can see that the table is not there. Though you can not show that God is not there because that is outside of physical means. What the problem is switching the words, Is or doesn't, in place of, may or probably. Once you use, Is or Doesn't, you make a claim that must be proven or atleast supported.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:01:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.

Amen.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.

Lol why? Atheists are responsible for pointing out the dog crap in religious assertions for God, which is nearly all of it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:11:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You sure did put alot of "a$$" in that last sentence. I'd expect nothing less coming from you. :)

So you can't take part in any argument then. Common sense tells you that in order to argue you have to take a side. Once you pick that side, you've made a claim. When you decide to quit being a poosy and hiding behind your definition then you can have a serious discussion. Until then all you're doing is playing hit and run and just throwing out your opinions.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:13:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.

I normally don't agree with you but...LOL!!
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:14:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 7:11:23 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You sure did put alot of "a$$" in that last sentence. I'd expect nothing less coming from you. :)

So you can't take part in any argument then. Common sense tells you that in order to argue you have to take a side. Once you pick that side, you've made a claim. When you decide to quit being a poosy and hiding behind your definition then you can have a serious discussion. Until then all you're doing is playing hit and run and just throwing out your opinions.

Nope. Atheist's part in the argument is to poke hole in the argument of the theists for God.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:15:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.

lol...Presence does seem pointless here if they're not saying anything.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:15:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 7:03:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.

Lol why? Atheists are responsible for pointing out the dog crap in religious assertions for God, which is nearly all of it.

How do you do that without making assertions??
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2012 7:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/12/2012 7:15:49 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 7:03:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:57:41 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:53:41 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:51:37 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
At 9/12/2012 6:49:20 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Atheism is based on a lack of belief, which means that atheists do not have to substantiate any assertions that they make simply because atheism does not make assertions. To ask a person to substantiate assertions that doesn't make assertions is ludicrous. And yes, I asserted a lot of assertions in the assertative assortation

You just contradicted yourself so hard. "Atheists do not have to substantiate assertions"
"Atheism does not make assertions"

What happened to the intelligence granted by your whiteness. Did it somehow fail at this point. If you were the average white person, then the white race is full of idiots.

*facepalm*

Atheism doesn't make assertions about God.


Then stfu and get out of the religion forum.

Lol why? Atheists are responsible for pointing out the dog crap in religious assertions for God, which is nearly all of it.

How do you do that without making assertions??

Apparently people have no common sense. Atheists don't make assertions about God. That doesn't mean that they can't assert that a theist's argument is flawed in some way while still making no assertions about God.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."