If you tell me that there’s a teapot floating out in a particular point in outer space, and I say there isn’t, you’re the one who has to provide evidence of it. I don’t have to provide evidence there isn’t a teapot, I can just dismiss the claim on the basis that it’s made without evidence. If you say a genocide is happening somewhere, and can’t provide any evidence of it, I’m free to dismiss the claim since it was made without evidence, and I don’t have to provide evidence to justify that dismissal.
This is no different from a theist trying to shift the burden of proof onto an atheist through rhetorical trickery.
That’s extremely not how logic works.
If you tell me that there’s a teapot floating out in a particular point in outer space, and I say there isn’t, you’re the one who has to provide evidence of it. I don’t have to provide evidence there isn’t a teapot, I can just dismiss the claim on the basis that it’s made without evidence. If you say a genocide is happening somewhere, and can’t provide any evidence of it, I’m free to dismiss the claim since it was made without evidence, and I don’t have to provide evidence to justify that dismissal.
This is no different from a theist trying to shift the burden of proof onto an atheist through rhetorical trickery.
Cool, so you don’t have a source. Kindly fuck off.
Cool, so you don’t have a source. Kindly fuck off.
Phoenix Wright what happened to you
It’s tough not being in a courtroom, where claims have to be backed up with evidence.