Follow TV Tropes
"In US civil law however , no one bears the burden of proof. Jurors simply decide which side they think is more likely, which is why O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but held liable for wrongful death."
This is wrong, but I hate editing others' entries without a sense of the community. I propose it be replaced with something akin to the following: "In US civil law, the burden of proof is passed from one party to another depending on rules of law. The job of the jury is to follow instructions and determine when each party has met its burden. Usually the plaintiff starts off with the burden of proving what happened, but it can be shifted to the defense in many cases."
This was written in a hurry, so it could be greatly improved I am sure. But it addresses my primary concerns, in that it corrects the false information.
I was concerned by the way the description section seemed to close to advocating a religious stance, and have added a note attempting to compensate for this (i.e. that Atheism bears no burden of proof when defending itself, but this stops being true once it's asserted as a fact - it's still unfalsifiable).
No, it's just the state of not assuming anything which is not in evidence.
There are atheists who do not assume anything without evidence and there are atheists who argue explicit nonexistence based on said lack of evidence, presumably because they're not as good at logic as their cousins in the former group.
The distinction between the two is absolutely essential for a proper understanding of this topic, and has not a damn thing to do with what atheism is or isn't. Please don't remove it again.
Well, I am an atheist, but also a (self declared) logician, and i've created this account for the sole purpose of agreeing with Jinren.
Acctually, i would even go further and suggest the removal of the example altoghether, or at the very least changing the wording considerably.
The claim "There is a god" and the claim "there isn't one" bears the same burden of proof. the fact that prooving one would be impossible, theoretically or practiclly, has no bearing on it's logical value.
as it is, what you've got there is a wunderfully self describing trope, but i doubt that was the intent.
Also as Jinren posted, if the argument is applied to the denial of belief version of atheism, it is this fallacy. But if an atheist claims that there is no god (and not that he doesn't believe in one) because god hasn't been proven, well that is this trope as-well.
No, that's not right at all.
Community Showcase More