Comment: No burden of DISproof

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Atheism depends on faith. (see in situ)

No burden of DISproof

The burden of proof ("There is an elephant in my bathtub." or "Water runs uphill.") is always on the affirmative position. Even in court, a defendant is not required to prove he WASN'T at the scene of the crime (in fact, presumed innocent until proven otherwise), but he often finds it helpful to prove that he WAS somewhere else.

Would you require proof if I were to claim that Peter Parker and Otto Octavius were fiction? I expect not. If I asserted that they were real, however, you might display a little reasonable skepticism.

So of course, no rational atheist ("Or do I repeat myself?") ever attempts to prove a negative.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr