Who has the Burden of Proof? Atheists or theists?

Burden of proof is a misnomer. It is traditionally used as a legal term and is placed upon the prosecution. If one is attacking religion, they have automatically attained the burden of proof.

If a theist attacks atheism, they have taken the burden of proof. In trying to convince someone else, you have automatically made that person the judge and jury and placed the burden onto yourself. So if you are an atheist trying to convince a theist, you not only hold the burden of proof, but the theist holds the position of judge (in determining what evidence will be accepted) and jury (in determining if the burden has been met).

Conversely, if a theist is trying to convince an atheist, they hold the burden of proof. So when a theist tries to convert an atheist, the atheist is correct that the theist hold the burden of proof, and indeed that the theist must provide evidence that the atheist find suitable. In a debate, however, neither side holds the burden of proof.

You are no longer talking about convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, you are talking about which view holds more weight. You will never find a debate ANYWHERE in which the entire burden of proof is placed upon one side. The idea is absolutely absurd.

So when I hear one side arguing that the other holds the burden of proof, I have to laugh. I also laugh when claims are made that no evidence exists. In every court of law, everywhere, personal testimony is considered evidence.

Written accounts are also considered evidence. Logical "proofs" are also considered evidence. All sides have evidence.

The question is whether the evidence is compelling for the person whom you are trying to convince. As for "scientists" all being a specific religion or atheist, that is ridiculous. I work in the science field.

I know a lot of scientists. Their beliefs are variagated. Christian rarely means 6-10,000 year creationist, and non-religious frequently means deist or theist, or agnostic, or atheist.

Saved That statement is neither true nor false until shown true or false. In fact, if you take the multiverse theory and understand that it implies an infinite number of universes, then you would naturally conclude that if such a place can possibly exist, it must exist in one universe or another. This is the same multiverse theory that is supported by Dawkins.

Right now, your writing is not clear enough to determine its existence. Clearly it is not difficult to make a model of a unicorn with marshmallows and fill it with gumdrops and sweet tarts. Can I assume that if I do so, god must exist?

Interested As I said, I do bare the burden if I am trying to convert you. But when atheists attack theism, what are they trying to do? Shove their beliefs down my throat?

And they provide no evidence and call me delusional for believing, just like a Christian tell me I am going to hell. You think the sides are different, but they certainly are not in my experience. Edit: And to the atheist who claims to be honest with themselves, whereas theists are not, I find your claim absolutely absurd.

You can 'believe' in and worship a holy fire hydrant for all I care... Just stop trying to force your religious 'beliefs' onto others... I have nothing to facking prove to you people. I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD. Until you can DISPROVE me, I will continue to be an atheist..... EDIT: As I said, stop trying to force your 'religious beliefs' upon others, and you would hear nothing from me... "And besides that, there are good reasons to believe in God: Prophets, Scripture, Miracles and Holy people" are YOUR claims and mean nothing to me and are no means a base for a 'hypothesis'... IMHO.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.