Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Or Santa, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The people who hope a god exists have had millenia to find evidence. So far, nada.

I'm happy. The Warriors beat the Lakers today.

Well the people who hope a god doesn't exist have had millenia to find DEFINITIVE proof. So far, nada.It would appear you need reminding....forget definitive carnal proof...it's a "red herring".

The requirement to prove a negative has way less weight than the requirement to prove an assertion. If you can’t acknowledge/see that you are an intellectual sloth. Look forward to your proof the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.

With all due respect...who holds the negative view here if neither side can provide DEFINITIVE proof of whether God exists or not?

I am just trying to put a balanced logic forward here.

It's a conceit to suggest that the assertion of something's existence has to be disproved by people who do not make the assertion.

Prove to me that Santa doesn't exist.
Prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

You make the assertion, you have the (much greater) responsibility to prove it.

This not a 50/50 proposition.

Your logic is not logical.

Sorry to be boringly repetitive - but this is not balanced.

Well if neither side can provide that proof why bother asking?

You keep ignoring my point (to preserve your cognitive dissonance, no doubt).

Santa Claus is real.

Who has the greater burden of proof - me or a disbeliever?

I am not missing your point...I totally understand your point....There is no burden of proof on either side to provide proof....hence the BALANCE....

There is no burden on either party each side of the fence in any of the below 4 off scenarios to provide definitive carnal proof.

1.Unbeliever (0) ….fence....Unbeliever (0)
2.Unbeliever (0) ….fence....Believer (1)
3.Believer (1) ….fence....Unbeliever (0)
4.Believer (1) ….fence....Believer (1)

Really - so any assertion at all should have the same gravitas as any other?

Approach everything as if you have no experience of reality - have learnt nothing - have no analytical skills - deny your inbuilt inference engine.

Ridiculous.

No...just don't ASSUME or adopt a bias...when you DON'T have definitive proof one way or the other.

So, Santa is as valid as God and there's a 50% chance either is true?

Likewise the planet Jupiter is actually a space goat's testicle, or at least there are equal proofs on both sides of the argument.

Sigh.

I can say anything exists, without proof, and you will accept there's a fair chance it's true because you can't disprove it?

Or is there a special clause in logic for the discussion of the existence/non-existence of deities?

None of us have definitive proof that God either exists or doesn't exist. We all have the possibility to reach a nihilistic reasoning stand off whether this be internally with ourselves or externally with others. Some people are illogical and only consider half the formula, others however are persuaded by the complete formula.
Examples:
1.People who only consider half the formula are persuaded by Buddhism RELIGIOUS belief principles because it gives them comfort. They are convinced that SELF is an illusion. They are only persuaded that Good (1) is Bad (0) and Bad (0) is Good (1).
2.People who consider the whole formula have the complete picture and accept SELF which is NOT an illusion and they acknowledge their failings because they accept that Good (1) is Good (1) and Bad (0) is Bad (0).

Good and Bad are separate.

It is my view that one needs to start considering the possibility that GOD has designed a perfectly balanced biological reasoning machine that our SPIRIT occupies.

I have no doubt that’s your view, and I respect it. But we were discussing the equivalence of proving a negative and proving a positive from a logical standpoint.