Burden of Proof

[4gold]

An atheist friend of mine and I were having an argument over who has the burden of proof. His position is that atheists do not have the burden of proof, since they cannot prove a negative. My position is that agnosticism is the only religious position that does not have the burden of proof, because they are the only ones that say that the evidence does not impel them in one direction or the other. I say that atheists and Christians both have the burden of proof.

Who wins this argument?

[BeHereNow]

beto

Intuitive proofs are not scientific or religious, so have no place in the subject area "Science and Proof".
To say the term contains the word "proof", so is appropriate in a thread on "Burden of Proof", is to miss the point entirely.

New Thread

[Beto]

beto

Intuitive proofs are not scientific or religious, so have no place in the subject area "Science and Proof".
To say the term contains the word "proof", so is appropriate in a thread on "Burden of Proof", is to miss the point entirely.

New Thread

You first claim that "intuitive proof" isn't invalid (on a thread about "Burden of Proof"), and now it's not scientific, and it's also inappropriate to define "proof" here? If in "intuitive proof", "proof" has a different meaning than the one usually assigned to the word, I'm no longer interested in it.

[BeHereNow]

beto If in "intuitive proof", "proof" has a different meaning than the one usually assigned to the word, I'm no longer interested in it.

As I explain in my thread, I put no "different meaning" to the word "proof".
If you are inplying that "proof" ALWAYS means scientific proof, then you have put special meaning on it.
I expected nothing less.

[Beto]

beto If in "intuitive proof", "proof" has a different meaning than the one usually assigned to the word, I'm no longer interested in it.

As I explain in my thread, I put no "different meaning" to the word "proof".
If you are inplying that "proof" ALWAYS means scientific proof, then you have put special meaning on it.
I expected nothing less.

It's only natural you'd expect that. In debate (the context in which Burden of Proof is used) "proof" is scientific by definition. For the purpose of debating on Burden of Proof, other meanings of "proof" are irrelevant. Other participants may have use for that sort of discussion.

And I'm getting rather tired of the "you're implying" comments (especially when the proposed implication is false). Why don't we let potential implications to the discretion of the reader?

[BeHereNow]

Proof - a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind
of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the
validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements
in accordance with principles of reasoning

Isn't that something.
I read the words you provided and do not see a word about science or it's tools it the very first definition.
Just goes to show how subjective some of these things are.

[Beto]

Proof - a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind
of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the
validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements
in accordance with principles of reasoning

Isn't that something.
I read the words you provided and do not see a word about science or it's tools it the very first definition.
Just goes to show how subjective some of these things are.

Perhaps you lack sufficient understanding of science (and the scientific method) to correlate with that definition.

[BeHereNow]

beto Perhaps you lack sufficient understanding of science (and the scientific method) to correlate with that definition.

Perhaps.
Perhaps not.