This is why I don't like debating religion

[DaRev]

GameOver22 said:

DaRev said:

Dodece said:
@DaRev

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Disproving a negative isn't a acceptable argument in any court be it civil, criminal, or that of public opinion. It is purely the last resort of the guilty, and those who know that they are in the wrong. This defense is fundamentally the lack of any defense at all. You cannot put forward a theory to actually be proven wrong. If you haven't provided evidence for its correctness. In simpler language you cannot put forward a case to be disproved if you haven't even made a good faith effort to prove it in the first place.

That said its just plain stupid to float the argument in the first place, because society has rejected such arguments. For good reason, because it is immoral, anarchical, and antisocial. If we accepted such a logic. Then every single murderer would be set free to kill as many times as they liked, because they could just say some fantasy creature really did the killing, and since we can't possibly disprove that argument with absolute certainty. They they must in fact be innocent.

Basically if we accept such a logic in any form we invite the dissolution of our society, and probably our very own survival as a species. Deductive reasoning is at the heart of all human activities. Hell even lower order primates understand that mental process. Their first act is never going to be to discount the least likely possibility. As other posters may say stupid argument is stupid.

lol, I don't know what you're on about but you might need to go back to law school. The claim here is that Religion, and as far as I'm concerned, Christiany is false. Well as far as I can remember from my law school days, he who brings a claim must prove it - what is your case against religion? The burden of prooof is on those claiming that religion is false. Religious pople here stand in Defense of religion. I hope you understand the difference. The rest of your post is rubbish so I wouldn't waste my time.

Yeah...Truth is, both sides have to provide evidence for their argument. The whole burden of proof is just a cop-out by both sides. Both theists and atheists use it. Atheists usually try to argue that the burder of proof is on the rligious believer because atheism is just the lack of belief....which is wrong. The lack of belief is agnosticism. Atheists actually claim God does not exist. Theists claim God does exist. Both have to support their argument.

agreed. I just needed to put that would be legal drop out in their pace.