re burden of proof in article apr batman bmd trw com jbrown batman bmd trw com writes actually both are positive arguments positive may not be the best description here due to possible misunderstanding but it s the term you used positive arguments assertions can be both affirmative i e god exists and negative i e god does not exist both carry an equal burden of proof because they are both asserting that a certain idea is true the default condition in the absence of a preponderance of evidence either way is that the proposition or assertion is undecidable and the person who takes the undecidable position and says that he she simply disbelieves that the proposition is true is the only one who holds no burden of proof this is why the so called weak atheist position is virtually unassailable not because it stands on a firm foundation of logical argument but because it s proponents simply disbelieve in the existence of god s and therefore they hold no burden of proof when you don t assert anything you don t have to prove anything that s where weak atheism draws its strength but its strength is also its achilles heel without assertions axioms one has no foundation upon which to build as a philosophy it s virtually worthless imo of course so if i were to assert that there are no thousand year old invisible pink unicorns residing in my walls i need to support this with evidence i think the lack of evidence shall suffice who happen to like listening to satanic messages found in playing beethoven s th symphony backwards fbi officials said cult leader david koresh may have forced followers to remain as flames closed in koresh s armed guard may have injected as many as children with poison to quiet them and god saw everything he had made and behold in was very good genesis
