Resolution: Atheists have the burden of proof
Thanks, Seldiora for the debate, lets get into it.
First of all, I don't object to any definitions, they're all fine, so there isn't any problem there. I'm kind of confused why you made the character limit so tiny, a sad and pathetic 3,500 characters. So I'll do my best to be succinct here and not make the special bolded categories I usually do. I will rebuke my opponent's argument, then make my own case.
Innocent until proven guilty
First of all, this does not equate to the burden of proof. In a court of law, the one being accused is always given the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, where if they were applying the burden of proof, that one must provide evidence to support one's assertions, then the quote would be, neither are true until one is proven. Therefore this entire analogy is a false equivalence
Second of all, the quote "Presume God exists" is not only making the claim that we should axiomatically accept god, or accept god as a given, but also assuming that his argument is correct without proper evidence. That the theist does not have a burden of proof, and the atheist does. This is begging the question
, another fallacy, but on top of those two reasons is my last point on the subject.
The position of the atheist wouldn't be "god is guilty of crimes" we are charging the proposition that god exists, that is what the atheist would argue, that god is innocent of being an unproven claim until proven guilty of being proved. So this is a straw man
, on top of begging the question fallacy, on top of false equivalence. In other words, this entire argument is complete bunk and fallacious reasoning.
The Atheist does not have "the" burden of proof.
According to the resolution, "Athiest have the
burden of proof" In this "sentence" the is what is known as a definite article
, basically it's used to identify the word "atheist" here. Therefore, as there is no exception, it can be reasonably interpreted that this resolution is referring to all or most atheists. Anyone who can is, "the" atheist, which would be everyone who does not believe or lacks a belief in god.
From there my position is very easy to argue, thusly, let's cross-reference the definition of the Burden of Proof that Pro provides, "the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge" Therefore an assertion must have been made in order for there to be a burden of proof, no? That essentially means that if there is no assertion made, then one does not have to provide any evidence for a statement, a disputed assertion at that.
Next, let's check up on what Seldiora defines an atheist as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" It is very apparent to see, that part of the definition clearly states atheism as a "Lack of belief" lacking a belief in an area is not an assertion. So while some may make an assertion, others will not, so some atheists may have a burden of proof, but they do not inherently process the burden as opposed to say, a theist.
Pro's own argument in favor of the resolution was full of fallacy, and altogether not a valid argument, therefore they have not fulfilled their own burden of proof ironically enough. While I have made a definitive argument towards my proposition, rendering my position fulfilled until it is otherwise refuted properly. I look forward to Pro's argument in round 2.
Back to Pro