1- No equivocations on the questions, or to the questions!
2- No time wasting or side tracking to divert from the questions (i.e. tangents, or rabbit trails).
3- If you donâ€™t know, simply say â€œI donâ€™t knowâ€! But, understand, in saying so, you give up all right to say (for example) â€œthere is no Godâ€; because you said â€œI donâ€™t knowâ€. This includes making statements like (for example) â€œthere is no evidence for God, therefore there is no Godâ€ because; you said â€œI donâ€™t knowâ€. If you do attempt such, you are equivocating.
4- If you are going to make a â€œNegativeâ€ assertion without factual evidence for said assertion, you are equivocating.
5- If you are going to make any assertions to support your argument, insure they are factual assertions, not simply opinion. Otherwise you are equivocating.
6- Any assertions that do not deal directly with the questions are either equivocating or time wasting.
7- If you post links to other peopleâ€™s opinions (regardless of their scholarship) without factual supporting evidences for said opinion, you are equivocating (and so were they).
Opinions are fine if they can be backed up by facts, but equivocations will not be allowed.
So do the attempts of atheists to dilute the meaning (or definition) of atheism stem from Bradlaughâ€™s assertion? What is the motive for such a shift in meaning for atheism? Is it an attempt to shift the burden of proof regarding the existence of God to the theist? Shouldnâ€™t anyone who claims, "God does not exist," have the same responsibility to shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists." http://www.thedivine...org/athart3.htm And, could this shift of Bradlaugh be due to the lack of a origins foundation for atheism, and therefore the need to shift the goal posts due to a lack of said foundations?