{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by TechnoKat:
9/25/2015 1:20:55 AM
1
You're still on this tangent thinking that the burden of proof is relative. That the burden is on the one saying that the other is wrong.
It's not.
It's not relative to anything. And it's not for or against. It's for.
Solely for, and not against.
I don't know where you're getting this idea, but it's not how it works.
The only one being a 12 year old is you, trying to argue that it is what it isn't. It's not a cardboard cut out box, dumbass, it's an established reality.
Someone's view point doesn't dictate who has the burden of proof. The burden of proof is dictated by the established normality.
In the case of religion, as was the original topic, the norm is that there is no God. The burden of proof, thus rests on the party stating that, despite the norm, God does exist.
It's that simple. There's no workarounds. No shortcuts, no ifs ands or buts, aside from someone who doesn't understand how the principal works showing their ass.
English
-
That's not what the law or statistics would say, but whatever. I told you I'm done. Not letting you continue to suck me into your vortex of one sided thought
-
One last time in case you actually want to learn. Opinions like [i]belief in something[/i] do not affect the norm. You can all think that God is real until your heads explode, it will not make him real. If he is real, like you think he is, then you can prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt, surely. But until then, the Status Quo of reality, is that he is [i]not[/i] real until you can [i]prove[/i] that he is real.
