A question for Sup Forums atheists

So let's say I'm an atheist,

And a Muslim tells me "It's dumb to be an atheist because you can't prove God doesn't exist"

And then because I'm such a genius I of course say "Aha! The burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim! So I don't have to prove anything, YOU'RE the one who has to prove God exists.!"

And then the Muslim says "I don't think that's true! What's your proof that the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim?"

What do I say? Has this Muslim just destroyed atheism???

Other urls found in this thread:

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Giving a shit what goatfuckers say
When asked what's the good thing islam can give humankind they answer islam.
There's no point of arguing with them.

Say that it's common sense to prove your own claims before spouting them as fact

It's called Russell's teapot.
t.the most atheistic country in the world

The proof that the burden of proof lies on the claim-maker is because otherwise any number of fantastical unprovable claims could be advanced and each would hold equal believability. Or, like the czech says, Russel's teapot essentially

You have just made a claim.

"it's common sense to prove your own claims before spouting them as fact"

Interesting claim...

What's the proof?

(Until you can prove it, there's no reason to believe it)

Are you baiting, retarded or can't into philosophy? There is no point in asking your "what's the proof" because it leads to an endless recurrence. You can always add "Yeah but what's the proof of what you just said?" after your opponents arguments over and over again and nothing ever resolves.

If abused without sense, this question does not expand the argument, it prolongs it.

People who believe in an absurd asumption like "God" prove that they are naive, ignorant and don`t have critical thought.
They are like children and shouldn`t be allowed to vote or have responsibilities beyond goat herding.

Because that's not how burden of proof works.
As simple as that.
Burden of proof is not some metaphysical and undeniable concept, it's just an artifical construct that avoids us the trouble of having to argue with dumb shit.
Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it's false, though, when you say the burden of proof is on another, you're not really saying that their claims are false until they're proven otherwise, you're just saying that there's no reason to believe them until they give a proof.
That's why burden of proof doesn't work when dealing with religions, they're based on faith, not empirical evidence.

So let's say the Muslim says,

"Where I come from, the burden of proof rests on the person wearing a hat."

Isn't that just as artificial a construct as Russel's Teapot?

There is absolutely NO evidence that either one is better or worse at filtering true or false arguments.

It was literally made up because a guy didn't want to have to argue about stuff that he personally couldn't disprove.

Russel's Teapot is arbitrary. This Muslim's hat rule is arbitrary. Neither can be "proven" so why do you trust Russel's teapot?

Russels teapot can only be based on 2 things

1. It's an effective way to filter out false arguments

2. It makes life easier so you don't have to argue with stupid stuff.

Now #1 would be an interesting argument. But of course there is no proof presented to back this claim.

And #2? It's meaningless in the context of an actual argument. It's just the same as saying "Yeah I don't want to argue with you because I'm not feeling it, thanks."

Yet somehow it's touted as some great philosophical concept.

>isn't that just as artificial a construct as Russell's teapot

No, you retard, because wearing or not wearing a hat has nothing to do with successfully making arguments, or advancing hypotheses about how the world around us functions.

The burden of proof lying on the claim-maker isn't arbitrary, it's there so that people can't advance claims that add nothing to discussion because of their grandiosity. It's there to keep retards from being able to argue from a position without a base. To facilitate constructive discussion.

I seriously hope you're shitposting, no-one should be this obtuse

Coming from the Turk who can't spell "don't".

I said in my post how applying burden of proof or other argumentative resources in religion-themed debates is mostly stupid because religions are not based on empirical evidence.
When someone blindly believes something without proof, not only it's pointless to demand proof, it's also pointless to show him proof of the inexistence of his God (assuming there's a way to get empirical evidence of that, which I don't think there is).
You just can't apply rational constructs to a debate that is inherently irrational.

No.
His logic is such a failure you're better off sidestepping it though. Adapt this idea.

Summa Theologica faggots. Read it

>Hell
>Zeus
U wot m8

"Wearing a hat has nothing to do with successfully making arguments, or advancing hypotheses about how the world around us functions. "

Congrats! You've just made a claim! The claim is that Russel's Teapot is BETTER at "successfully making arguments" and "Advancing hypotheses about how the world around us functions" then the "Muslim Hat" rule.

Now just to reiterate, this is the CORE difference that you claim separates Russel's teapot from the Muslim Hat rule.

Since this is a pretty concrete claim, let's see some proof!

Let's see where they put 1000 people in a room, gave them instructions to argue, and told 500 to use Russel's teapot argument, and the other 500 to use the Muslim Hat Rule.

Show me the study or article or anything really that shows that the Russel's Teapot group would arrive at more true conclusions.

>talking to muslim let alone debate about Islam
Sounds like you are just retarded m8.

The only proof of atheism is what people can see right in front of them.

They can't explain why we have logic and reason.

They can't explain why 21 grams of weight disappears from your body the moment you die.

They can't explain why or how the universe was created, they can only define how it currently works.

Last but not least, how does all of this come from nothing?

On another note are you a Muslim, OP?

I haven't heard as much positivism since 1924, Vienna

"The burden of proof lying on the claim-maker isn't arbitrary, it's there so that people can't advance claims that add nothing to discussion because of their grandiosity. It's there to keep retards from being able to argue from a position without a base. To facilitate constructive discussion."

You're right in that arbitrary is a poor choice of words.

You're saying that Russel's Teapot makes conversation and argument easier and more organized.

Here's the problem.

This isn't a claim about truth. It's just saying that it makes life easier because you don't have to argue with retards. This argument is not concerned with what's true or false. it's just concerned with making your life easier.

And you know what else would make life easier? Just not having to argue with anybody who wears a hat. You could probably save a lot of time.

The Muslim is a complete idiot and I don't know why the fuck you would want to walk a 5 mile radius near one.

But the assertion that the Burden of Proof falls on the Atheist is stupid and shows how arrogant the person is. The only person making the claims are the theist, saying there is a creator.

For example, say there is a lake with 2 people by the lake. One of them says "There are millions of sharks in this very lake, but they are invisible", the next person tries to rebut it by saying the person making the claim has to prove it, "Prove there are sharks in this lake". The idiotic response to this would be "Why don't you try to prove there are no sharks in this lake".

t.Agnostic

>the most atheistic country in the world
The DPRK would like to have a word with you.

Not a Muslim, just chose a Muslim for the story.

I don't believe that only empirical evidence can give knowledge, however, you can only have a fruitful debate around inherently logical subjects, that have empirical evidence to support any claim made over them.
"Debates" around metaphysical concepts such as God and religion are just people throwing their beliefs to each other, because there's no way to logically prove to anyone that their stance on the matter is wrong.

It's about simple logic you absolute fucking retard, a hat is a garment, and thus intended to keep one's head warm or to look fashionable. Russell's teapot is a concept specifically focused on creating constructive conversation via didallowing absurd and nonsensical claims, because once you do that you allow the flood-gates to be opened.

A hat is a hat. Russell's teapot is a well-regarded and useful piece of logic that allows us to narrow our conversations to the realm of reality, of what can be observed and experienced, and of what can be reasoned. It is inherently more valuable in the realm of argumentation theory because it pertains to the subject matter

Per your other comment about making things "easier", you're mistaken. That's not the point, the point of it is to advance discussion, not streamline it, so you're already confused about what Russell's Teapot really is

Why did you choose to believe in Logic?

I'm always curious in how people arrived at their beliefs.

>They can't explain why 21 grams of weight disappears from your body the moment you die.

Dead people tend to exhale, piss and shit themselves.

21 gramms is about enough to empty the bladder, bowels and lungs.

Well cross that question off the list.

The other questions are still good ones.

>because there's no way to logically prove to anyone that their stance on the matter is wrong.

Mind if you prove this then?

tell him he is a pig fucking faggot..the burdern of proof is upon him to prove he is not

Itt:logical fallacy

I'm way ahead of you

yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

I don't believe in "logic", at least not in the same way you would believe in God.
Logic is a method, a system that allows us to discern truth from falsehood.
What I believe is that logic is something that was there and not man-made, in the sense that it allowed us to deduce things about the natural world that turned out to be correct even before we could observe them.
Logic isn't applicable to everything, however,. metaphysical concepts escape logic, even things that aren't metaphysicals escape it, that's what axioms are, whether this is because our logic is still imperfect or because some things will always escape it I don't know.
I'm not saying that debating about religion is a waste of time, it can be intelectually stimulating, but applying stone-cold logic to those subjects seems futile because they're above it.

>Logic is a method/ system that allows us to discern truth from falsehood.

Source?

ok mister pedophile worshiper. I accept your claim.
Yes, the burden of proof does not lie with the person making the claim.
.....
I have 2 claims for you:
- I am god
- you are lying when you say I am not god
prove me wrong

To recap:

I created a made up alternative to Russel's Teapot called the "Muslim Hat Rule" to illustrate how ridiculous and arbitrary Russel's Teapot is.

In this most recent post, you attempt to describe the difference and show why Russel's Teapot is legit and the Muslim Hat Rule is not.

Here are the arguments you made.

>A hat is a piece of attire and therefore not a good argument. Whereas Russel's teapot was SPECIFICALLY created to be used in arguments.

First of all, you somehow seem to think that I'm claiming that wearing hats makes you wrong. Which of course not what I'm saying and frankly ridiculous.

Secondly, the intention of something has no bearing on the outcomes. The Muslim hat rule may have been specifically created for the exact same reasons as Russel's Teapot. But that doesn't make it anymore accurate, or true.

The second argument you make.
> "It is inherently more valuable in the realm of argumentation theory because it pertains to the subject matter"

Pertains to the subject matter? Not at all. Russel's teapot can be used in any argument whatsoever. It has NOTHING to do with the subject matter of the argument. It can be used in arguing about popcorn, cuckoldry, or metaphysics. The subject matter has NOTHING to do with when Russel's teapot is or is not used.

In the same way, the Muslim Hat Rule is not limited by the subject matter.

Your third argument

>"Per your other comment about making things "easier", you're mistaken. That's not the point, the point of it is to advance discussion, not streamline it"

This was a good try, but a swing and a miss. There's no reason to think that advancing a discussion is going to make it any more meaningful or more likely to get to the truth. I could advance a discussion on thousands of false beliefs and logical fallacies, and it would be a terribly untrue discussion.

You can not prove in ANYWAY that Russel's teapot is better than the Muslim Hat Rule.

>They can't explain why we have logic and reason.
Even wimps have muscles. That's why you think you are asking valid questions that point to the proof of a belief, in your case God.

LOLOLOLOL

THIS IS GOLD

>"I don't believe in "logic", at least not in the same way you would believe in God."

2 sentences later

>"What I believe is that logic is something that was there and not man-made"

LOLOLOLOL

LITERALLY DESCRIBING BELIEF IN GOD

Why should I have faith in you?

What the fuck is Michael scott roleplaying as a muslim

It's shit

Stop memeing me you brit fuck.

So believing that something wasn't man-made is the same as believing in God?
Kill yourself you piece of shit.

because I say so.
and if you don't you'll go to hell.
if you want I can also put my saying so in a book.
which will be correct.
because I will have revealed its content to the true believers.

Tell tham that when you will be interested in the muslum opinions on the logical matters - never

Not anything you don't understand is memeing

>So believing that something wasn't man-made is the same as believing in God?

Takes as much faith

also I love you.
but don't masturbate

Occam's razor / assigning the burden of proof to the one making the claim that would complicate the model of the world, the belief that what will happen will resemble what has happened ( i.e. there will be no miracles ) is a heuristic that is not logically provable, only experientially vindicated ( or not )

The logical proof that believing in any God that is mutually exclusive with other Gods is a bad idea ( eg: Gods such as Allah ) is that there are infinite possible mutually exclusive hypothetical Gods that could be postulated all with no evidence as to their existence. The chance that you pick the correct possibility out of infinity choices is precisely zero.

>because I say so.
>and if you don't you'll go to hell.

What authority do you have?

>if you want I can also put my saying so in a book.
which will be correct.
>because I will have revealed its content to the true believers.

The only book I believe in is the Bible

Nu scrie nimic in Biblie ca nu trebuie sa te masturbezi :^)

No, I literally said why I believed that.
Logic is something that has allowed us to discern truths and falsehoods in a way that has been proven right by the natural world countless amounts of times, not only that, but with the exercise of logic we've deduced things that we weren't capable of observing at the time.
You can't believe in logic like you believe in God because they are fundamentally different, if you don't understand this you're dumb as a rock.

>Muslim tells me "It's dumb to be an atheist because you can't prove God doesn't exist"

Can you user? Can you prove God doesn't exist? This is not the same as showing that his religion is as silly as spagetti monster religion.

If you cannot prove God doesn't exist, the sandnigger is right. Atheism is silly. His religion is still as silly as spagetti monster religion, though with more bombs and child rape.

Agnosticism is truth, user. It is impossible to prove either the existence or nonexistence of god. Kant, Schopenhauer and Goedel made an airtight case.

I am god. I have all authoritah'
the bible is a lie. I am the one and only true god.

you're still not proving me wrong.

You know pic related is actually Occam right?

I don't have to, I just don't believe you :^|

>geneza 38:8-10
>onan
>onanism

If I told him there's even a bigger god than allah and his name pig, would I have destroyed his belief in islam?

Our perception of reality itself is too subjective for objective reality to be a certainty.

If a person practices meditation enough, they can experience lucid dreaming or out of body experiences. And materialists will sum these up as a product of the material brain and nothing else.

But if the material brain is able to create a fully immersive and experienced reality, there is no way to escape the real possibility of solipsism or simulated reality. An observer that has potential to be completely subjective has little possibility to be completely objective. Conversely, a God that controls reality or the perception of it could make itself real to anything or nothing.

The difference between an objective materialist world or an intelligently designed world therefore lies in control rather than perception, or even measurable observation. A spiritual world implies the possibility for the rules of reality to apply differently to different people. Of course, this is true too of an objective world, but applies to social reality and access to technology more so than say, devotion allowing someone to walk on water. However, if technology and objective understanding in a materialist world reaches a point where perception can be totally controlled, completely subjective experiences become objectively controllable phenomena.

The point of all this is, materialism vs spiritual reality are less different than people suppose and what matters is the results of the perceiver. Whatever methods that produce the results you want are what you should do.

then I will send you to hell for all eternity. enjoy.

>Logic is something that has allowed us to discern truths and falsehoods in a way that has been proven right by the natural world countless amounts of times

Examples?

>not only that, but with the exercise of logic we've deduced things that we weren't capable of observing at the time.

Doesn't mean they were being discernible truths and falsities

>You can't believe in logic like you believe in God because they are fundamentally different, if you don't understand this you're dumb as a rock.

It's fundamentally the same exercise. See: Axioms

N-are treaba. Are de-a face numai cu faptul ca n-a vrut sa o - scuze limbajul - futa Onan pe cumnata-sa si si-a irosit "samanta" (care avea scopul asta specific) pe pamant

E impotriva coitus interruptus

>Did Asians go to space first, no.
>Are the strongest men in the world black, no they're white.
>Are jews simply not evil, well zionists are atleast
Don't even get me started on the backwards thinking of your avarage Muslim.

Seriously, society pushing the values of people that think solely about lying down on a carpet and beheading others is not healthy for America or the EU.
We need people that promote free and critical thought during education.
Not; "accept everything without being able to criticize as any negativity is shunned" type of thinking.

What the flying fuck has the middle east and Africa done for us this last century?
Played some part in the advancement of modern medicine, invented any of our modern day technology?
Absolutely nothing of value, our cuck people support the Untermensch either way because they mistake them for being human and not a different breed of human as they should be classified as.
These third world nations are ruled by primitive tribes, couldn't get anything off the ground in these last decades.
They're a problem for us and everyone around them and we support them in effectively multiplying said problem.

IT IS SAD to see these relics of time, passed over by evolution to muddle around in our 21st century, ethnic cleansing is not only right but merciful.

Good luck with that :^)

Even if it was true, how are you supposed to know your shitty religious text wasn't forged by some pedophile who wanted to quick money?

What a tragedy that out of a million sperm, you were the fastest swimmer.

I guess you take a risk don't you

It's basic logic.

Assume that he's right in that it's stupid to not believe in God because he made claim, and that the burden of proof is on you.

Then I come along and tell you both that there's no God. Again, the burden of proof is on you and you would both be stupid not to believe me.

So you're now required to believe two conflicting claims that can't both possibly be true.

This scenario is completely illogical. Proof by contradiction. QED.

ti-ai cam raspuns singur
>care avea scopul asta specific

>OMG let me repost one thousand times debunked argument for the thousand and first time

>Examples?
Every technical branch of engineering/physics has a strong basis in logic.
Science simply wouldn't be possible without a logical system to advance it.

>It's fundamentally the same exercise. See: Axioms
Axioms are things that we assume true not because of faith, but because we can draw conclusions out of them that prove out to be true.
The fundamental axioms of geometry can't be proven by our logic system either because it's imperfect or because they're above it, however, by assuming them true, we can make logical chains of propositions that ends in conclusions that are proven true by the natural world.
We believe in them because they've been proven useful for hundreds of years, not because we have blind faith.
If at some moment in the future a time comes in which we can logically prove how they're all somehow false, then we'll simply ditch them.
Thinking that you "believe" in logic is literally missing the point of it, logic is a tool, a mean so you don't have to blindly believe in things, not a superior metaphysical concept that rules everything.

Pai da, asta i s-a cerut sa faca (sa o lase insarcinata pe cumnata-sa)

Altfel n-ar fi fost pedepsit

made me giggle

plus Coloseni 3:5
>De aceea, omorâţi mădularele voastre care sunt pe pământ: curvia, necurăţia, patima, pofta rea şi lăcomia, care este o închinare la idoli.
aici e și mai tare interzisă - intra la necurăție, patimă și la poftă rea.

Atheist don't have to proof anything, they are just confident that every religion is wrong, especially the classic ones.

I must say that every atheist is actually an agnostic, because if they get presented irrefutable proof that there is a god, they have to accept. But they feel it is safe to say that these classic religions are false and I agree with them on that.

I do understand the role of religion in society and civilization, but this doesn't mean we must all subscribe to a fairy tale and regard it as the most serious thing in existence.

Regarding the Burden of proof issue, the burden of proof lies with the religious person, as he is the one claiming there is a god. The atheist doesn't come up out of the blue saying "There is no god!". His claim is a response to a religous person claiming there is a god, so the burden of proof lies with him.
Imagine someone telling you a story that is hard to believe, and doesn't make much sense. And you say "yeah I don't think that happened." The one with the story says "Well proof to me that it didn't". Now maybe you can proof he is lying, but you have no obligation what so ever. So in a peacefull society where religion doesn't mean anything, this is ok. Things can go on, no one proofs anything and no one cares. When a religous person wants to force his believe on you, so you adopt it, why on earth would you have to proof that he is wrong?

>implying the muslim won't get upset that you insult his deep-seated belief in PBUH by being an atheist and neck you on the spot

>materialism vs spiritual reality are less different than people suppose
I believe they are one and the same and that believing in a seperation, like dream (metaphysical) and waking state(solid reality), lead to the origin of the metaphysical belief of the soul, God etc.) a very long time ago by the ancestors.

e adevărat că motivul pedepsei a fost că n-a facut-o cu cumnata, dar și modul în care s-a sustras de la executarea ordinului contează.
am scris și mai sus ca oricum nu e un singur verset care interzice masturbarea și chiar dacă se interzice voalat sau circumstanțial tot interzicere e.

>Every technical branch of engineering/physics has a strong basis in logic.

Doesn't mean that logic specifically made them what they are

>Science simply wouldn't be possible without a logical system to advance it.

Implying Science is a necessarily (as a matter of fact) a method that discern truths and falsities

>It's fundamentally the same exercise. See: Axioms

>Axioms are things that we assume true not because of faith, but because we can draw conclusions out of them that prove out to be true.

Who told you that? They are by definition undemonstrable

Regardless of that conclusions they (by definition btw) yield to be true

>The fundamental axioms of geometry can't be proven by our logic system either because it's imperfect or because they're above it, however, by assuming them true, we can make logical chains of propositions that ends in conclusions that are proven true by the natural world.

See the response right above

What you're doing here is 100% circular reasoning

>We believe in them because they've been proven useful for hundreds of years, not because we have blind faith.

"Proven" by your definitions

>If at some moment in the future a time comes in which we can logically prove how they're all somehow false, then we'll simply ditch them.

It depends on what logical rules you use

See Quantum Physics for a complete redefinition of them in Physics

>Thinking that you "believe" in logic is literally missing the point of it, logic is a tool, a mean so you don't have to blindly believe in things, not a superior metaphysical concept that rules everything.

Doesn't mean that it's a demonstrably useful tool

And circular reasoning ain't gonna cut it

thre is no hell in greek mythos thats the thing its just "The Underworld" a chasm of souls of the departed thats watched by hades

theres no good or bad to it, least not that I remember

It doesn't. Tell him that if Allah exists so does every fairy tale and other mythic being. We just can't prove them.

Ai dreptate, se interzice si prin Matei 5:28

Voiam sa spun doar ca nu se interzice direct/ in mod explicit

if youre too retarded to not realise that semantics games are useles then im pretty sure youre worthy of beng raped by a muslim

>semantic games
>meta-physics/ metacognition

>You're believer, not thinker, what you think is utterly irrelevant to your god, you and me too.

>I don't think that's true!

I don't care.

> What's your proof that the burden of proof always lies on the person making

I don't care. Look, you're the one bothering me with this crap. Tell me why you believe in your magic invisible sky fairy, or piss off.

nici violul sau pedofilia nu sînt interzise explicit din câte știam.
oricum o discuție despre așa ceva cred că se poate doar între experți în studiu biblic sau cum i-o zice. plus că mai e și kestia ca biblia a fost scrisă în aramaică, tradusă (uneori prost) în greaca koine și abia după tradusă din koine în alte limbi. plus cea mai urâtă treabă e că multe cărți nici nu au intrat în biblie deci nu prea poți să fii sigur că biblia pe care o citim noi sau englejii sau franțujii e corectă sau completă.

What would you accept as proof?

The simple fact is this.

At some point you chose to believe that logic is a useful tool.

There was some experience, or someone told you something, or you read something or WHATEVER, that made you DECIDE to believe that logic is a useful tool.

Now - that decision HAD to be made without logic. Because you can't use logic to prove logic.

So in effect, the very CORE of your whole entire mental process, is based on something that you chose for unknown and non logical reasons.

So it's a little silly to claim that somehow you can your logic is somehow better than any other system, when it was simply arrived at for some unknown and arbitrary reason.

>Doesn't mean that logic specifically made them what they are
Of course it means that, you can't have science without logic.

>Who told you that? They are by definition undemonstrable
And? Assuming they're true we derived geometry, a branch of mathmatics that had and has endless applications in many branchs of sciences.
That's the whole reason we believe in them, that and because they seem true by intuition.

>What you're doing here is 100% circular reasoning
No, you're simply not understanding what you're reading.
You said that believing in logic is the same as believing in God because there are axioms on it, and that's wrong because unlike a religion, the only reason why we assume them true is because the conclusions we can draw out of them are proven right by our natural world.
Logic is a tool that ultimately helps us to describe the world, religion tries to explain the world to us, comparing them is like comparing a hammer to a house.


>See Quantum Physics for a complete redefinition of them in Physics
We arrived at wrong conclusions using logic that QED later overrided, it was the same logic that proven them false decades later, what we lacked wasn't a better logical system, but more sophisticated systems to conduct experiments and/or innovative perspectives about the results of experimentation.
Logic is something far more fundamental than Newtonian mechanics, is something whose metadiscussion belongs in formal mathematics, not physics.

>Doesn't mean that it's a demonstrably useful tool
It means precisely that, logic is a tool, and is demonstrably useful because it has already been useful thousands of times, every single branch of science is a testament to that.

...

You say "get back to the desert you goat fucker"
and that's the end of the argument.

>Implying Islam isn't a satanic religion.

> Observe that 1 + 1 = 2, and that logical systems govern all things.
> Apply these same observations to cognition, training the mind to think logically.

Checkmate faggot.

I could say this: regardless of why anyone comes to adopt the system of logic, logic is valuable because of how useful it is to us after adopting it.

You can blindly believe in conclusions drawn from a logical process.
However, every single one of them has a logical demonstration, the only reason why you blindly believe in them is because most of the times you know they're true because they've had a practical application in the real world.
You're also missing the point of logic.
I've already repeated this several times but you've missed the point too, logic doesn't outright tell you what's right or false, logic is a process, a tool by which you can discern truth from falsehood, just because you don't want to bother yourself to prove something because you have faith in your sources that doesn't mean that you're having blind faith in logic.

>"observe that logical systems govern all things"

LOL good luck observing that ;)

>What's your proof that the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim?

>I saw bigfoot in the forest, I don't have to prove to you that I did you have to prove that I didn't!

100% Retardation

Lot's of things are useful. That doesn't make them any more accurate or true.

This thread in one pciture