catholicray: "How is this actually different from the atheist position concerning the burden of proof? Seems identical to me."

Someone is still struggling with their comprehension skills. Here they are again.

• Agnostic – This means nothing more than “without knowledge.”
  Agnostic, from the Greek: γνοσι (gnosi) = knowledge;
  ενα- [usually shortened to α-] (ena- [usually shortened to a-]) = to be without;
  thus, αγνοσι (agnosi) agnostic = to be without knowledge.
  I am agnostic in there are many things I do not know. Thus, I am without that knowledge, thus agnostic. Everyone is agnostic to a certain point. I cannot put this any simpler.
• Atheist – If translated literally, this means “without god.”
  Atheist, from the Greek: θεος (theos) = God, Lord, Creator;
  ενα- [usually shortened to α-] (ena- [usually shortened to a-]) = to be without;
  thus, αθεος (atheos) atheist = to be without God.
  However, in today’s terminology, and more accurate, atheism actually means “a lack of or disbelief in any claims for the existence of any deity.”
• Anti-theist – This one, in my definition, means exactly as it says; anti- = “against,” theist = “belief in one god.” Or better, “against belief in any deity.”
• Anti-religionist – This one is exactly as it says: “against religion.”
• Apistevist – lack of blind faith; one who does not rely on religious blind faith in order to discern true facts.

How about another breakdown?

• Agnosticism: I do NOT know whether an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.
• Atheism: I do NOT believe the preposterous claims without substantiation whether an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.
• Anti-theist: I am against believing the preposterous claims without substantiation in the existence/non-existence of Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer).
• Anti-religion: I am against all harmful religions that do believe without substantiation in the existence of an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer).
• Apistevism: I refuse to utilize blind faith in believing without substantiation whether an Umaäxalis (V: All Creator) and Athanorama (V: Lord Fatherer) exists or does not exist.

And here is a definition: sub•stan•ti•ate – verb (used with object), sub•stan•ti•at•ed, sub•stan•ti•at•ing, sub•stan•ti•a•tion; 1) to establish by proof or competent evidence; 2) to give substantial existence to; 3) to affirm as having substance, give body to, strengthen.

FYI: If you keep the entire word εναθεος (enatheos), you have the basis for the English word anathema. Anathema [uh•nath•uh•muh] noun, plural a•nath•e•mas. 1) a person or thing detested or loathed. 2) a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction. 3) a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication. 4) any imprecation of divine punishment. 5) a curse. 6) execration. And everyone of the definitions for anathema has been used by you Religious Absolutists against us atheists.

Can you now at least see the difference?

Theists can use both arguments, fallacious as they are, 1) I believe a deity exists; 2) I do not believe a deity does not exist. Either way, Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. The burden of proof is still on the theists, regardless.

rmfr

I think @catholiccray's issue is that he thinks that a person who does not believe God does not exist must be a theist, when this is not true. Belief is an essential element to theism: thus, the thread OP is a non-sequitur.

catholicray: "I don't believe that god does not exist. You need to prove me wrong."

Bullshit!

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

Do you even know what this means?

The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not him who denies.

This means that since you are making the assertion, "I don't believe that god does not exist."; you are the one who needs to provide OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

rmfr