It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

Conduct Points: I ask for conduct points. There is no reason I should have to put up with these insults in order to have a philosophical discussion. - In the comments, Pro suggests that I'm ignoble for not conceding. - Pro opens round 3 with the suggestion that I argue in bad faith. - Pro closes round 3 by saying how remarkable it would be if I could do rigorous analysis like him. - Round 4 opens with the suggestion that I am a charleton who glories in his ignorance. - In round 4, I am compared to a parrot repeating cliches without understanding them. I ignored these until he resorted to insulting me from the comments thread while the debate is still ongoing. I will block him. I will not debate him again. But voters should let him know that he's over the line, that his conduct is not appreciated. Vote conduct points to Con. Source Points: As Pro himself pointed out, this is a philosophical debate. It shouldn't depend on sources. We should defend our positions with reason. But does Pro take his own advice? No, he goes after the source points by citing irrelevancies: - He cites Wikipedia on skinner boxes, which have nothing to do with burden of proof. - He quotes, or misquotes, Parmenides as saying, " the Goddess received me kindly, took my right hand in hers, and addressed me with these words: Young man, accompanied by immortal charioteers, how reach my hour by immortal horses which bring you. Welcome since it was not and evil destiny that sent you forth to travel this road but right and Justice, There is need for you to learn all things—both the unshaken heart of well-rounded Truth and the opinions of mortals, in which there is not true reliance,." Not only does this have nothing to do with the burden of proof, but Pro never closes the quote. We have no idea where the irrelevant incoherence of Parmenides bleeds back into Pro's own irrelevant incoherence. - He quotes Kant saying that popular charletons glory in and boast of their ignorance. This could be relevant to presidential politics, but it isn't worth any points in a debate on burden of proof. Why doesn't Pro cite something relevant to the burden of proof? I assume that this is because there's nobody to quote. Nobody supports his position. Wikipedia says, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." Period. There's no exception for atheists in there. [1] Rationalwiki says, ""Burden of proof" is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it." No exception for atheists there either. [2] Iron Chariots wiki says, "Burden of proof is the position, in argumentation theory, that the individual making a claim that something is true is required to support the claim with evidence or sound argument sufficient to warrant acceptance of the claim by the other party. If the claimant cannot provide sufficient evidence, the other party is allowed to disregard the claim without having to disprove it." Again there's no exception for atheists, even though the authors are atheists. [3]The Flat Earth wiki says, "The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic." Always. No exceptions.[4.]Answers.com quotes the American Heritage Dictionary. The burden of proof is, "The responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation." No exception for atheists. [5]That's the top five Google hits for "burden of proof" (not counting additional links to Wikipedia, links aimed specifically at law, and links like saintsrow.wikia.com, microformats.org, and heartbeat.wikia.com, that don't offer a definition). I could go on, but there's no point. Nobody reading this thinks I'll find anyone making an exception for atheists. None of Pro's sources support his "case." The appearance is that he trying to win source points by citing irrelevancies. Do not support source-slutting. Do not vote points for irrelevant citations. The Burden of Proof in This Debate: Pro undertook to prove that atheists don't have a burden of proof. Even if he is an atheist, he has the burden of proving this. Don't let Pro use incoherent irrellevancy as a weapon. If you can't tell what he's trying to say, vote against him. What is Pro's Actual Case? What Is He Trying to Say?I can only guess whether there is an intent hidden in Pro's gibberish. When I see something that might be relevant, I interpret it as generously as I can. So, while I may be wrong---and I apologize if I am---I think his argument is as follows: Things can be proven. Non-things can't. Nonexistence isn't a thing. Therefore, people who believe in the nonexistence of god have no hope of justifying their position. Therefore---for some reason---they shouldn't have to. Atheists should get a free pass. Atheist beliefs should never be challenged. They should be accepted without evidence or logic. That's perverse. That's saying that we should believe something because it is unsupported. That principle would lead to intellectual chaos. In his final post, Pro offers this suplementation: "a should implies a could." Interpreting this as charitably as I can, I think Pro is saying that atheists have no obligation to support their claims, because their claims are unsupportable. That argument is so bad as to be self-parody. The goal is to increase rationality. To seek truth is to hanker after well-founded beliefs. Making an exception for beliefs that are unsupportable is perverse. Counterproductive. Atheists should have the same burden as anyone else. If our beliefs are truly unsupportable, we should change them. If we recognize that a belief is supported by neither logic nor evidence, then we can abandon that belief. And that is doable. Pro says a should implies a could, but we can alter our beliefs if they are unsupported. And we should. Conclusion: Pro assumed the burden of proof. Those asserting a position have the burden of justifying that position. There is no exception for atheists. Pro has not effectively defended such an exception. If athiest beliefs really aren't supported by logic or evidence, then we should change our minds and believe believe something else. Vote Con. Thanks. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://rationalwiki.org...3. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...5. http://www.answers.com...