Talk:Normative Burden of Proof/@comment-34938008-20200531181832/@comment-39198898-20200601091653

Agnostics as a position isn't simply that it is a 50/50 to whether God exists or not. In some sense, agnostics are not willing to put forth the proposition that God doesn't exist, like you said, and I agree with that point. However, contemporary atheist/agnostics act as though God does not exist because no such argument has shown its existence. It is not needed for the agnostic to show that God doesn't exist in order to act like he doesn't. It is for the theist to change the agnostics mind on that point, and until that point, we act as though God does not, even if we aren't making the affirmative statement that he does not.

Such is analogous in the moral case. You might concede that there could exist good reasons to not do something, but if they are not established, if they haven't been argued for, you continue on as though they are permissible. Also, as I have previously argued, what does an amoral action *need* in terms of permissibility *reasons*? Do you agree/disagree with the examples I used in the article?