Nice. javacurian really nice. Yes, The burden of proof is always on the
person making an extraordinary assertion or proposition (for e.g existence
of god, anel, devil, alien etc.). It is a fallacy to put the burden of proof
on the person who denies or questions such an assertion.

"If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of
the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive
arguments !!????!!!" -- Bertrand Russell

If anyone believes that the god exists, it his duty to bring the scientific
proof, cause, it is his duty to establish your concept, not the otherway for
the atheist to disprove it.

BTW, I am very interested to get some valuable comment from our famous
skeptic/agnostic (?) APARTHIB in this topic. Where is he by the by?

Avijit


>From: "Javacrucian" <javacrucian1@...>
>Reply-To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
>To: <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy
>Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:37:01 -0400
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bishnu Dey" <sankar_rabi@...>
>To: <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 4:06 AM
>Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy
>
>
> > >From: "Ajoy Kumer Roy" <kumer_ajoyroy@...>
> > >Subject: [mukto-mona] Attn : Shabnam Nadiya - From Dr. Ajoy Roy
> > >Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:53:16
> >
> > Dear Mr. Roy:
> >
> > Thank you for a nice essay on atheism. As you have yourself
>acknowledged,
>I
> > paraphrase here: "Like many other phenomenon in this universe, the
>existence
> > of god cannot be proved nor disapproved". In my opinion, this statement
> > must be qualified with reference to our collective knowledge base as
>human
> > beings, at the current time. Who knows what future holds, and what
> > scientific breakthroughs will occur in the future to unfold the
>mysteries,
> > which we call "undefined" or "undetermined".
>
>
> Awesome post, Bishnu!
> One thing I like to point out whenever the issue of "god cannot be
>proved or disproved" comes up is *who* has the burden of proof. (It's
>likely that you're already aware of this, but others who are reading may
>not
>be, so please bear with me <g>)
> "There is no god" is a negative assertion, and negative assertions
>are,
>by nature, very difficult if not impossible to prove. "God exists", on
>the
>other hand, is a positive assertion, and positive assertions are generally
>easy to prove. It's because of this that the burden of proof always falls
>to the person(s) making the positive assertion; hence the whole "innocent
>until proven guilty" philosophy behind the American judicial system, among
>others. The point being that it is *always* the theist who has the burden
>of proof, not the atheist. This is why I consider atheism to be the
>default position regarding the existence of god. This is also why I never
>let theists try to put the burden of proof on me, and neither should anyone
>else.
> There is a flip side to this coin, however. You mention me towards
>the
>end of your post as having "burned the bridge". I don't blame you for
>thinking this considering some of my posts, but in the interest of accuracy
>I ought to define my atheism a little more. The thing is, the fact that
>negative assertions like "god doesn't exist" are improvable is also the
>reason why I don't feel I can state the god doesn't exist in an absolute
>sense. If I am to maintain my intellectual honestly, I *must* be open to
>the idea that god may indeed exist. Being open to the idea isn't the same
>as thinking it a likely thing, of course; based on the arguments for god's
>existence that I've seen thus far, I'd say the likelihood of him actually
>existing are very small indeed. Nonetheless, I have to accept that there
>may yet be an argument I haven't heard or some piece of evidence I haven't
>considered which will change my mind. Such is the nature of logic. So,
>to amend your phraseology a bit - I haven't really burned the bridge, but I
>don't expect I'll be backtracking over it either. Besides, given the
>rapid
>advancement of science and of humanism in the world, that bridge may be
>self-combusting in the not too distant future anyway =)
>
>
>Javacrucian
>------
>Hey, you! Do something useful like visiting my homepage:
>http://www.geocities.com/javacrucian1/JavaEnter.html
>
>"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue
>against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish
>the principle that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without
>reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do),
>they
>are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational
>argument." -- Ethan Allen
>
>------
>
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp