In any serious discussion the participants must present arguments for their respective position. Both people bring an opinion into every discussion. Most people understand this, but sometimes someone comes to the table under the impression that their view is correct by default. A classic example of this can be found in the comment section of The Complaint Dept. Is Closed #12.
What we have is someone who misunderstood the burden of proof, as well as mistakenly believed his view was correct by default. GOD argued that as a skeptic, his view did not have to be defended because skepticism was the default position in the discussion. I see no reason to repeat my comments from the discussion since they accurately represent why I believe GOD was incorrect. But a quick review may be helpful.
In any discussion there is no default position, since once a proposition is offered, there are only three options, and two of them must be defended:
Affirm the proposition.
If someone offers “P is true”, and you concede P is true, there is nothing more to discuss. The debate is over.
Deny the proposition.
If someone offers “P is true”, and you deny the truth of P, your position of skepticism does not protect you from defending your position. Neither the one affirming, or the one denying the existence of the plane is correct by default. Since before the claim is made, there is no position at all, there is nothing to defend. But once P is offered in either direction, no one is correct by default. A denial is in fact a position.
Withhold judgement for further information.
Here you are neither affirming or denying P, and thus are offering no position, and have no burden of proof. It is only this soft-Agnosticism which bears no burden. But this is not what GOD or the skeptic argues. Like affirming P, this also ends the discussion.
It is important to realize no one sits in a position of privilege in any discussion. Everyone has an opinion, and every opinion requires justification.