Atheism is a philosophy of negation, devoid of an argument. Why do then atheists continue their harping? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Northwest I'm an atheist, and trust me- he's essentially correct. Within the rules for burden of proof only those incurring a penalty need post proofs. The problem is that those constructing the rules are unable to post anything themselves. They merely coast on the failure of competing beliefs. This breeds inconclusiveness, and is suggestive of results rigging.

@PrivatePeeks Umkay... That, however does not address the question I asked.

I asked why he thinks "Atheism is a philosophy of negation", NOT the rules of burden of proof.

@Northwest Burden of proof IS a philosophy of negation.

@PrivatePeeks

[quote]When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor. Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion, the Sagan standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[/quote]

Negation is a unary logical connective, not a philosophy. It is taking a proposition P to a proposition that is not P, or: P -> P. First week of logic circuit design, in junior year.

Negation is not a philosophy, but I suppose some can spend 5 years trying writing a thesis, to show how negation can fit into philosophy.

@PrivatePeeks I think you might be talking about the legal system's use of the burden of proof, or the philosophical use of the term. It's not clear.
However, even in law a party who alleges an affirmative position has to prove it. The burden lies with the party who supports an argument by claiming a particular fact. The only time the opposing party has to prove the negative is in the face of a previously accepted fact.
The existence of god isn't a previously accepted fact.

@bystander Good explanation, but I'm arguing something much simpler, and in layman's terms: the question of God's existence can take a form (or many forms) and that does not have to be a "burden of proof" discussion. That was my question to the OP who started the thread, as he presented it as if negation is the only way to have this discussion.

@Northwest I completely agree. Unfortunately, one of the contributors to this thread seems to have me blocked (I don't know why), so I'm seeing only part of the discussion.

Bystander said that negation becomes germane only when a previously-established fact is challenged, and I really don't see how the existence of magical entities could be represented as a previously-established fact.

@newjaninev2 I'm only seeing part of the discussion. Seems I'm blocked by some as well. Not surprising :-)

I don't like to pick "religious" fights, but.... :-)

@Northwest I feel the the OP is perhaps making the error of assuming that atheists say 'there are no gods' (i.e. that they're gnostic atheists), and perhaps some do.

I, however, do not, which is why I'm an agnostic atheist, have no gods, and incur no burden of proof

@Northwest [quote]Seems I'm blocked by some as well[/quote]

Timidity is always distasteful

@newjaninev2 Generally speaking, that's how I would describe myself.