Where as if they just make a positive assertion period, then we could say that the assertion is not true, when we could never say that the fact that a person believes something is not true.  The thing that they believe may not be true, But "I believe" just says that they believe it.

The truth of whether a person really believes an assertion is separate from the truth of the assertion itself.  What I don't get is why you are so hung up on this.  There is no criticism here that you can make against atheists that doesn't apply equally to theists.  You might as well have titled this thread "Strict Christianity is Illogical".

Do you agree that the statement "I believe that there is no God" is signifigantly different, if not radically, then the statement "There is no God" because of the burden of proof required for the latter?

No.  I think that the difference is subtle and not significant with respect to burden of proof.  Nor do I believe that you can distinguish the positive claim from the negative claim in this respect.  You tried to brush that point aside, but you must know that it has a central bearing on your entire argument.

That's an open-ended invitation.  Can you provide more guidance in what needs explaining?

Nor do I believe that you can distinguish the positive claim from the negative claim in this respect. You tried to brush that point aside, but you must know that it has a central bearing on your entire argument.

Positive claim:  God exists.
Negative claim:  God does not exist.

Alleged distinction:  logicality and/or deceptiveness.

You said "Let's not get ahead of ourselves", which I took as your way of brushing the point aside.  

If you have no criteria for distinguishing the positive or negative claim with respect to logic and/or honesty, then you might as well condemn Christians and atheists alike for their behavior.

David, can you give me an example of what you consider a negative claim?

That being said, positive or negative, both are claims about external reality, so they still have a burden of proof.

You must know that I'm going to take issue with that statement, having been hit with "burden of proof" challenges from atheists before.  Positive existence claims have always carried the greater burden of proof, and for a very good reason.  It is much easier to prove a negative claim wrong than a positive claim.  

Bertrand Russell rather famously made this point about a china teapot orbiting the sun.  It's an absurd claim--"There exists a china teapot in orbit around the sun".  But how can you falsify it?  You can't actually prove beyond all doubt that no china teapot is orbiting the sun.  Now consider the negative claim:  "There is no china teapot in orbit around the sun."  That's much easier to falsify, because one just needs to produce evidence of such a teapot.  Then the claim can be tested by examining the evidence.

So, given those two claims--"God exists" and "God does not exist"--the positive claim assumes the higher burden of proof.  The atheist has a legitimate right to demand evidence in support of such a claim.  Arguments between theists and atheists always come down to whether or not the proffered evidence is sufficient to validate the positive claim.

Just wondering, was I right in my definition of positive and negative claims?  From what you said I think I was, but I just wanted to make sure.

I would prefer to define a positive claim as a claim that some object has a given property or attribute.  A negative claim is the denial of that.  But we can get tangled up in a lot of philosophical knots if you want to examine theories of truth.

Russel makes a relevant point, but it is flawed.

A china teapot orbiting the sun is an absurd claim, but a problem is that absurd is a subjective term.  While most people, including myself, think that this is an absurd claim, I believe he is equivocating if he wants to apply this argument to the existence or nonexistence of God.

The absurdity of the claim really had nothing to do with his point.  It was nothing more than an analogy to show why positive claims accrue a higher burden of proof than negative claims.  It is not an argument that negative claims are always true.

I think, and I am sure that many other people, if not most other people, that the claim "God exists" is a reasonable one.  In fact, I think that the claim "God does not exist" is more absurd than it's opposite.  But then again, of what worth is one person's opinion?  What matters are the facts  logic, which this analogy fails.

You are focusing on the irrelevant (and superfluous) point that the china teapot claim was absurd.  The argument was that a positive claim is always easier to prove with evidence than a negative claim.  Another way to put the is to talk about search spaces.  If I want to prove that a unicorn exists in Ohio, I need not examine every location in Ohio.  I can stop at the first location where I find a unicorn and present it as evidence.  If I want to prove that a unicorn does not exist in Ohio, I must examine every location in Ohio in order to prove the claim.  I cannot stop before I reach the final location in order to prove my case.  Hence, positive claims are easier to prove (locate in a search space) than negative claims.  That is why the positive claimant carries a higher burden of proof.

The atheist, or anybody for that matter, has the right to demand evidence for a claim.  But another problem arises when someone says that the evidence for one claim must be greater than for another.

The argument is a general argument about positive and negative claims.  It is not specifically about atheism.  It is just that atheism is inherently a negative claim, and theism is a positive claim.

How much greater?  Well, that is a bit subjective, isn't it?  For somepeople, there would never be any evidence for God that was 'high' enough.

And some will never give up the claim that God exists before they have examined every potential place that he could be.  The logic is absurd.  It is equivalent to saying that we must treat every claim anyone makes as credible unless it is proven false.  In fact, except in the case of religious faith, most people tend to let skepticism inform their credibility.  You do the same when it comes to claims about the existence of non-Christian gods.  You reject their existence on the basis of lack of evidence.  When it comes to the Christian God, lack of evidence means nothing to you.  That is the nature of "faith".  It denies our natural inclination to be skeptical of unevidenced claims.

Couldn't atheism be the positive claim, then?  God not existing is attributing a attribute to something.

Atheism makes no sense in the absence of theism.  Skepticism is never a positive claim.  It is always a reaction to a positive claim.

I think he is either unintentionally or intentionally equivocating, which just adds and unfair bias to the argument.  I won't complain anymore, though, because it still fails.

Not really.  You have not shown why negative claims should have an equal or greater burden of proof than positive claims.  But we can agree to disagree, I suppose.  

Yes, but all I am saying is that if these people examine what the bible says and especially what Jesus said, that they will undoubtedly find God.  Don't examine every place he could be, start with Christianity.

If that is your point, then that's fine with me.  You are attempting to meet your burden of proof--to provide evidence for the positive claim.  Skeptics do not win arguments by default.  They have to overcome evidence in favor of a positive claim.  In this case, however, you don't get far out of the box before tripping over the fact that many people examine the Bible and never find Jesus or God.  Nor is it reasonable to assume that you will find Ganesha or Shiva if you examine the Bhagavad Gita in great detail.  The mere existence of religious scripture does not validate a religion.

The claim is not saying that we should treat every claim as true until proven false.

If your position is that negative claims have an equal or greater burden of proof than positive claims, then I think that you are saying exactly this--that every claim is likely to be true until proven false.

Still though, you are still faced with the fact that 'higher' is a subjective term that allows you to throw out any proof given to you.

No.  I believe that a positive claim needs evidence to get its foot in the door.  In the face of evidence, the skeptic has a burden of proof--to overcome the evidence.

Quote

Atheism makes no sense in the absence of theism. Skepticism is never a positive claim. It is always a reaction to a positive claim.

 

Yes, but aren't positive and negative all a bit arbitrary?  Theism makes no sense in the absense of atheism.  If one says that they believe that there is a God, then they have rejected the notion that there is no God.  You have to have dark to know what light is.  Or, worded differently, you have to be able to not believe in something in order to believe in it.

Not necessarily.  There is such a thing as mere absence of belief.  The strongest position for an atheist to defend is mere lack of belief, not a positive belief that gods do not exist.  (Ironically, this strong position is called "weak atheism".)  In this sense, a newborn baby could be called an "atheist", since it has no concept of gods to disbelieve in. All atheists can claim to be "weak atheists" in the sense that they lack a belief in gods.  I tend to try to defend a more easily attacked view of atheism--the positive or "strong" belief that gods do not exist.  So I try to offer evidence in favor of rejecting belief in gods--e.g. the fact that belief in gods has historically led people to misinterpret and misunderstand natural phenomena, which can be both a waste of time and sometimes dangerous.

I am saying that in the case of God, and maybe in the case of anything, positive and negative don't apply, because they can always be reversed.  I think they are completely arbitrary.  Non existence is an attribute just like existence.

As you like.  I explained why positive claims carry a greater burden of proof than negative claims, though.

Quote from: Copernicus

And some will never give up the claim that God exists before they have examined every potential place that he could be. The logic is absurd. It is equivalent to saying that we must treat every claim anyone makes as credible unless it is proven false.

I am pointing out that I am not employing this logic.  I am not asking you to search everyplace God could be.  I am asking you to search where God IS.

As soon as you show me where that is.  I've looked everywhere that I could think of.  

You can give up if Christianity fails.

In my opinion, it does.

The logic I am employing is that you should not make false systems of thought that allow you to reject any proof on personal whim.

I'm not.  I've never found an argument in favor of a god that met its burden of proof.  I think that it is rather the other way around.  You willfully suspend your natural skepticism with respect to the Christian God, but you maintain it for all other gods.  In fact, you have been indoctrinated to accept such a belief on faith.  There can be no attack against such irrational faith, but there is no rational defense of it either.

If a claim is made, proof should be offered with it.  The proof should be weighed in an unbiased manner, and the claim should be rejected if it fails its burden of proof, but accepted if it does not.

This is exactly my position.  I think that our difference lies in your assumption that negative claims carry an equal burden of proof.  Before disbelief is possible, there must first be a belief to register disbelief in, not vice versa.  

Whatsmore, it is not neccesary to know something doesn't exist.  

If a claim like the teapot one is made and no proof is offered, then it is enough to simply believe that it doesn't exist.

We are in violent agreement.  You do realize that Russell's china teapot was a metaphor for God, don't you?

Quote

No. I believe that a positive claim needs evidence to get its foot in the door. In the face of evidence, the skeptic has a burden of proof--to overcome the evidence.

Yes, but overcoming the evidence does not prove the opposite, which is what you are claiming.

I am not claiming that.  Licensing a belief is not the same as proof.  Disbelief comes with no inherent cognitive penalty.  It is the so-called "null hypothesis" or "default".  Belief in a claim comes with an inherent penalty--a burden of proof.  Evidence is what nullifies or wipes out that penalty.  If evidence fails to support a belief, then you drop back to the null hypothesis.  When people say that there is evidence for God's existence, what they are really saying is that the proferred evidence is not sufficient to overcome the cognitive burden of maintaining belief.

I mowed my lawn the other day, Cop.  The only evidence is that my mower has less gas in it and my shoes have dirt and grass clippings on them.  

If you could prove that I siphoned the gas out of my mower and simply rubbed my shoes in the grass, it wouldn't prove that I didn't mow my lawn.  Period.

That being said, I do believe that positive or negative, any claim requires evidence to get it's foot in the door.

Your evidence for lawn-mowing may or may not be impressive.  Your evidence for God's existence, as far as I can tell, is zero.  Hence, the null hypothesis applies--disbelief.