It's hard to have a discussion with someone who calls themselves an "atheist" without knowing whether they use the term to mean they are undecided (i.e. they lack an active belief in the existence of gods, but equally lack an active belief in the non-existence of gods), or have taken an active belief in the non-existence of gods.
It is scarcely undecided. I am quite certain there is no compelling evidence for gods so far, but that might change as our knowledge increases. The lack of any evidence is justification for atheism in the mean time.
In much the same way as we don't believe in other posited entities with zero positive evidence backing them up. Russell's teapot, the invisible pink unicorn etc. All quite consistent. Absence of evidence for a posited entity justifies a lack of belief in that entity.
That is about all one need really say on the matter of negative atheism, from here it is up to the evidence presented by the one making the positive claim.
When discussing with someone who is undecided the meeting is between someone who has taken a position and someone who takes no position, in which case it is reasonable to ask the one making an assertion to demonstrate why they make the assertion. The person who is undecided makes no assertion and as such does not have a position to support.
Exactly. Which is why the burden of proof is on the theist if they encounter a negative atheist, not on the theist.
As I said, it is a matter of expediency for everyone. You do not exactly want me to sit here discussing arguments we both find unconvincing. It would be quicker for everyone to tackle what you find most convincing.
When discussing with someone with an active belief in the non-existence of gods, the meeting is between two people who have taken opposing positions and so it is reasonable to expect both sides to demonstrate why they believe as they do.
Yes, quite. I have no problem with people asserting that strong atheists have their own burden of proof to meet. The issue is that there are far fewer strong atheists around than people would like to think, so this means the positive claimants will end up shouldering most of the burden of proof.
I personally didn't pick negative atheism for expediency - I picked it because it's the most reasonable stance to me. It is rather baffling that some people will insist I defend a stance I don't actually hold.
To transfer the approach into the political domain (and using US politics for the sake of an example) the default political allegiance has to be no allegiance to either party. If someone who votes Democrat discusses politics with someone who has yet to decide how to vote, the person who has yet to decide doesn't need to justify why they have yet to decide but the person who votes Democrat should be ready to explain why. If a person who votes Democrat discusses politics with a person who votes Republican it is absurd to suggest that one position is the default and the person taking the other position should justify their stance, the only useful discussion would see both parties explaining why they took the stance they did.
I was thinking of it more in terms of a senator from the republican party deflecting questions by randomly asserting that their opponent is not actually a democrat when said democrat points out that the senator hasn't made a particular policy
I think we can agree such behaviour would be considered rather dishonest and evasive, as the observation stands on its own merit, rather than on the political label of the person objecting