It is irrational for BOP to be on Atheism

Burden of proof is on The Fool to demonstrate as to why it is irrational. Due to character limit, positive arguments will be found within rebuttals. Parmenides’s argument of existence My opponent gives three formulations of premise 2: What is not does not exist. I agree with this premise. If it is not, then it does not exist, simple reasoning. Now my opponent goes on to say that all of his premises must be refuted, or else his conclusion stands. This is very wrong. Apparently my opponent proudly references Parmenides, but has never taken a course of study on the Parmenides dialogue. "P1 What is IS!" What the dialogue amounts to is there is only* a problem with premise one, thus a problem with the contextual conclusion. “Is” simply implies “being.” Now The Fool simply presupposes that there is no plurality in the “is.” Socrates/ Plato rightly point out the “is” could be many of multiple things, unlike and like, and still be completely sensible: including containing Forms, or rather God. The Fool’s argument says nothing on the topic of plurality of “is.” This is where the argument greatly breaks down, it presupposes there is no plurality in being, which is ultimately what it is trying to disprove. So now that we know this argument doesn’t do any service, The Fool loses his premise that “you can’t prove something that doesn’t exist.” And that particular premise is utilized many times by him. The argument from Absolute universe “Thus if there are God, or and outside to that which is physical and whatever else it may be exist in the Absolute Universe. If is outside then it does not exist.” [Absolute Universe refers to The Whole] I would like The Fool to proofread, so his arguments can show more clearly. Secondly, The Fool is assuming Forms, or God as he terms it, are not part apart of The Whole. Moreover, The Fool, once again, assumes “if outside…then does not exist [non-being.]” But conveniently supplies no argument against plurality of being, so the entirety of both of his two argument boil down to nothing but bold assumption fallacies. The argument of oppression “You cannot morally expect someone to follow or act in a way to accord with rules that have not been demonstrated to then and the require then to prove it false first. Irrational.” Now, my opponent is just tossing around the word “irrational.” I’m also curious as to what religion you are discussing in this argument? Secondly, religious people, generally speaking, don’t shove the commandments or rules down other people’s throat, unless of course you go to church, but that’s a choice. Third, religions like Christianity and Buddhism articulate ideals like altruism, love, and empathy, which are lessons that are accepted by most every culture in the status-quo, anyway. Accepting the commandments or these lessons is totally up to a person’s choice, there is no oppression going on. Fourth, this argument really has no link to the BOP topic. Argument from Pride and honesty “If you are sure and proud of you argument…You would just proof it by sheer honesty and pride…Therefore it is irrational for the BOP to be on Atheist. Because the theist should want to prove it if it is true” This argument lacks sense and link-to-conclusion of the resolution. First, your assuming that not one atheist should want to disprove the God hypothesis. There are weak atheists, or agnostics, who are apathetic, but they’re not the topic. It is the case that there are many internationally known atheists that should want to disprove God. One example would be Mr. Christopher Hitchens, RIP, who goes on to say that not one brilliant person was Christian and religions of the world are vastly destructive. Thus, with such claims, that many strong atheists have, it is the case that BOP justifiably is equally placed on them. With such claims they should want to disprove God, so they could push for solvency to their claims. It’s nice that The Fool has pride in his arguments, but we are not talking about him, we are talking about atheism, in whole. But even The Fool has lofty claims such as when he states religions, in the status-quo, are oppressive. Well if he would want to right such an accusation then he should want to disprove the God hypothesis. The argument from claims non-existence Once again, I’m having a hard time completely understanding your argument through the choice of grammar and spelling but it seems to me The Fool is stating: 1. God is nonexistent 2. Non-existence is beyond human understanding 3. Anything beyond understanding cannot be proven absolutely false 4. Therefore it is irrational to put BOP on atheist The Fool has in no way shown that God does not exist. Therefore the rest of his argument follows in no way, shape or form. It is all predicated off of his nonexistent premise. Argument from order A good way of checking the reasoning behind someone’s argument is if it is applicable to every day life. If we applied the reasoning of The Fool all of society would plummet into chaos. Explanation:   If dozens of witnesses tell the court they saw a car hit a pedestrian then a proponent lawyer would try and demonstrate their statement valid. A defense lawyer would attempt to show the witness statements to be not valid and somehow mistaken. Most lawyers never get to the absolute truth but rather try to reach truth through inferences and implications of facts and witness statements. The same is true for the God hypothesis. A theist will gather the facts and try to demonstrate the witness accounts—true. A strong atheist will do otherwise. Thus BOP, reasonably, is on both. An atheist will gather a case that shows –there is no good reason to believe witness accounts: a theist, vice versa. No one gets a free pass, in trial. And that’s what a debate serves as—an informal trial. There’s nothing irrational about this paradigm. Argument from implication Cross-apply my analysis in Argument from Pride and Honesty, as to why any atheist that sees a damaging fault in religion or God to society, easily has a should. Also cross-apply all my analysis on The Fool’s non-existent God premise. This argument is more of the same, just combined in one. The Tea pot argument “If it irrational to make a claim which cannot be demonstrated and then expects others to have demonstrate it false first.” The burden of proof should be equal on both, for if anyone wants to prove or disprove they must bring something to warrant their claims. Just because something is not absolutely falsifiable, does not give a free pass in warranting claims. It wasn’t absolutely falsifiable that O.J. Simpson killed two persons, but the defense did not give up. They accepted their BOP,and convinced everyone of their case. A responsible and rational mind would, without hesitation, take equal burden of proof to prove their case. They would and should especially do so if they believe it is to bring down a destructive institution, like many strong atheists contend. The fact of the matter is, is there are apathetic God-believers and non-believers. People, who don’t care to enter into this debate, will live their entire lives for God, see Mother Theresa. Their faith becomes their life. To attempt to show God as false is to upset the equilibrium of many lives, all that to say it is disrespectful on behalf of the strong atheist not to take equal burden of proof. Believers do not have to prove God, for they believe it. If you enter into the intellectual arena to prove/disprove the God hypothesis, the “ticket” is proof. Especially since the arena, in and of itself, is an option for both parties! No one has to partake in the debate. Looking through everything, Burden of proof has not been met.