nice analogy lol

I try mon ami, I try 😁

It seems like you stated it backwards? Are atheists saying "God does not exist" or are they saying "No man has seen God at any time"? ( which is in the Bible, by the way) In your example, I could say that I have no reason to suspect that any of the balls are red, so someone has to show me a red ball. I'm not asserting that they all are not red.

@ScottRowe, that's an issue I 'm not clear on, but I did raise it in a different thread. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I might update my answer when I have the time. As of now, I focused on the difference between theism & atheism (ExGx: God exists and Ax~Gx: God doesn't exist). Notice the all for atheism.

"you can't prove a negative which is hyperbole for it's more difficult to prove a negative" - sometimes perhaps, sometimes it's functionally impossible (combing every inch of a vast forest, while somehow also not letting anything slip past, to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, or checking 10^100 balls), but often it's literally impossible (proving the non-existence of the invisible unicorn living in my back yard... which shares a lot of parallels with an invisible all-powerful being that makes you feel things sometimes).

I'd prefer an analogy of: theism says there are exactly 421573910573189 beans in that jar. Atheism says there probably aren't more than about 10000, on account of us never having found a jar with more than that, and there almost certainly isn't exactly 421573910573189 beans in the jar.

@csstudent1418 is "humans always believed in God" a positive claim? Citation Needed on aisle 6...

no need for balls: the Russel's Teapot analogy fits perfectly already

@csstudent1418 another claim: humans have always not believed in a lot of gods (also documented monotheism is fairly recent in the grand scheme of things)

@ScottRowe I think they're saying "All the claims of having experienced God must be false because God doesn't exist."

Regarding #1, there is a positive side to a negative claim. Certainly one may choose to not believe in a creator, make a negative claim to that effect and have no burden of proof. However, if one were to make a positive claim, (and insist on it being fact) that life arose from the random interactions of inert matter within a "primordial soup" there would be some obligation to prove such a claim, would there not? And couldn't another person make an opposing negation of that claim and not need to prove it?

Good point @MichaelHall. It is not necessary to propose an alternative hypothesis and that it seems is the reason why some atheists say atheism is not a belief. Muchas gracias fellow homo viator

Atheism says "show me the red ball", not "no ball is red". Proof that 1 red ball exists (and only 1 true red ball, no purple or orange balls) is the burden of the redballists (theists).

An everyday example would be proving to a delivery company that your package didn't arrive. What, do you want me to send you a photo of an empty room? That doesn't prove anything. Sure, you can ask my wife. But that seems kinda biased. On the other hand, if the package was actually delivered, I can simply prove it by taking a photo of it.

"You can't prove a negative" is wrong, and so is your interpretation. Mathematically speaking, it isn't harder to prove a positive or a negative statement.

@EricDuminil, you might wanna dig a little deeper mon ami. Even so, interesting point.

"Dig a little deeper". In which direction? Any hint would be welcome. Also, here's an explanation why "you can't prove a negative" is wrong. cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/‌​…

@EricDuminil, there are many ways to skin a cat mon ami. You misconstrue my intentions, happens to even the best of us. Can you break it the cambridge.org argument down for me? Where does my argument fail?