ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."* For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

* Jon Murray and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists: With All the Answers (1982 ed.) vol. ii., p. 18.


this is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1110i.htm