Yes, person B could be labelled an atheist; But there is no difference in significance between a positive and a negative claim, they are both claims based on the individual person's beliefs.
I didn't say atheism was a claim, be it positive or negative. What I said was that it was a
response to a claim.
By the sentence "Show me some evidence for it" we see that person B has a fairly good idea of what he like the evidence to prove. It's all about proof for the persons own belief. This belief is likely to change over time. If a similar claim comes from a quantum-physicist the atheist might be more prone to take it under consideration, perhaps. Unless the atheist is also a sceptic; Then he will constantly ask for proof and constantly reject any proof handed to him.
This is the beauty of beliefs, it is your own very subjective thing.
No. We have a well defined meaning of what evidence means. Any evidence must be testable and repeatable, which is the common standard we use in science.
If a claim comes from a quantum physicist, I would still ask for proof. Notice that the person making the claim does not matter. What matters is the claim itself.
If the theist was content with stating that "I believe god exists", my response would be "Okay", since that is his/her belief, and beliefs should not be held to any standard of proof.
However, if the theist makes a positive claim, i.e, "God exists". I would say "I do not believe you unless you prove your claim."
I fail to see why this fairly common response gets so much heat when applied to the subject of a deity.
Notice that atheism is a response to a
claim, not a
belief.
People can believe all sorts of things, and they should not be held accountable for their private beliefs.
