User talk:Blasphemist

Welcome to RationalWiki
I see you have drilled right down into the guts of the site at Junk Article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * : )  Blasphemist   (Speak)  07:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Spelling
good one :-) - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks!  Blasphemist   (Speak)  09:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversion (BillyBaroo)
Why do you keep deleting my posts?--BillyBaroo (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Burden of proof lies on whoever makes the affirmative claim, plain and simple, just like the definition says. Saying burden of proof lies on the skeptic is fallacy... like the definition says...


 * If no-one said there was a god, atheists would not need to say there isn't one. The statement that there is no god is a rebuttal to prior statements that there is one.  An atheist does not have to prove a rebuttal when there isn't sufficient proof of the original statement.  Therefore, your argument does not work.   Blasphemist   (Speak)  06:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Burden of proof and theism talk are not exclusive (though many mistake these to be exclusive). Burden of proof can apply to many things, it simply means the proof lies on whoever makes the affirmative claim. God does exist. God does not exist. There is no proof to support either. Therefore your reasoning is bunk. Either you don't have an understanding of how burden of proof works or you're too agenda driven to have rational thought.


 * Either you don't have an understanding of how burden of proof works or you're too agenda driven to have rational thought. You just made my point for me.  I've already explained that the "no god" stance doesn't exist without the "god" stance, atheists wouldn't have to dismiss the idea if someone else hadn't put it forward first.  The theistic claim is always the affirmative claim.   Blasphemist   (Speak)  07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The god claim is an affirmative claim. This is correct. The no god claim is also an affirmative claim. Your reasoning doesn't negate a persons duty to back up their claim. "no god" is just a rebuttal to "yes god" justifies and explains nothing. You're are telling me because a certain claim came first, the second claim doesn't need to back their shit up. Burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim. Just like this own sites definition says.


 * Again, an atheist does not have to prove a rebuttal when there isn't sufficient proof of the original statement. You've wasted enough of my time having me explain this.   Blasphemist   (Speak)  08:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)