Pemalite said:
WolfpackN64 said:
Just because sceptics throw away any rational argument and revelations because it's not empirical to them does not mean they are right. on the contrary.
|
Being rational is to throw away baseless assertions which cannot be tested via the scientific method even after being given thousands of years to try. (That's religion in-case you aren't aware.)
WolfpackN64 said:
If they are so sure there is no God, the burden is just as much on them as it is on us, as we have provided many an argument as they have failed to empirically disprove anything.
|
No. That's not how it works. That is not logical.
Religion made the assertion that God exists, the onus falls upon them to prove it, Atheists aren't obligated to disprove it.
You are trying to use circular logic (A typical Theistic trap) which is a logical fallacy.
Otherwise I can assert the claim that I ride a Kangaroo to work every day... And if you don't have Evidence to the contrary, then it must be true, right?
However... The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory has shown that as science continues to progress, that theistic perspectives will continue to wane.
WolfpackN64 said:
What people don't understand about proof of burden is that 1. It works both in a positive as in a negative sense & 2. Unless you're a sceptic, empirical proof isn't the only form of proof, for if that was the case, our own science wouldn't even be able to operate correctly.
|
False.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)
WolfpackN64 said:
The skeptics and empiricists discard revelation very easily, but if they then claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on them.
|
Correct. But only if they make such a claim.
I am not making that claim, I am claiming that the burden of proof hasn't been met by Theists after thousands of years (So they have had plenty of bloody opportunity!) and thus can and will discard their theistic claims as utter rubbish.
|
I explained my point enough.
Proof of burden DOES go both ways since negative claims are being made (and since arguments have been provided on one side).
And rationality does not equal empiricism, I hope that much was already clear.
