i-am-dallas  asked:

again.. IT IS ONLY IN THE AREA OF SCIENCE that a burden of proof is one-sided. IN ALL OTHER FORMS OF EPISTEMOLOGY, the burden of proof is two-sided. Claiming someone fucks children isn't a scientific claim. Neither is the existence of God, Santa, or the toothfairy. Therefore, you are either denying his claim and moving on, or you're refuting his claim. If you refute, you have a burden or proof on your shoulders. This is basic, 5th grade shit you should have learned.

All existence is scientific.  Either things exists or they don’t.  I can claim anything exists but with out proof no one would believe me.  And why should they? 

Gods are no difference.  They are subjected to our physical laws of existence.  When our ancestors said “Zeus was throwing lightning down on us” they were wrong.  Believing that to be true didn’t make it true even if they didn’t know the science behind it. An unanswered question is preferable to an unquestioned answer.  I don’t need to refute a claim that isn’t true and has no proof. 

i-am-dallas  asked:

Just so you know, and if you bothered to do your research, you'd find that the "burden of proof" is a concept that rests on both parties in a debate. The only time that the burden of proof is one-sided is in scientific discourse. Other that in science, all forms of epistemology require mutual (not necessary a-symmetrical) burdens of proof. So if you claimed that God, the toothfairy, unicorns, etc., existed, or denied it, you would have to make the argument because it's not science.

I completely disagree with you.  You can believe what you want to believe and I can’t stop you.  That doesn’t mean I don’t think you are completely wrong.  If you think I need to prove that things like this don’t exists, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, 2+2=5, or God, then you are sadly mistaken.  

Just like if I say “eyefluid likes to have sex with little boys.”  The burden of proof would be on me.  It wouldn’t be on you to disprove my assertion.  The person asserting a truth has to prove the truth. Not the other way around.  

That’s how science works.  A scientists asserts a hypothesis and then tries to prove it.  It is called the scientific method.  Perhaps you’ve heard of it?  

When Darwin came up with natural selection and evolution it was up to him to prove it.  Not up to the “deniers” to disprove it.  When Newton came up with his idea of gravity it was up to him to prove his hypothesis.  Not up the “deniers” to disprove it.  

Maybe you need to do some research about the burden of proof?