Asymmetry: theists and atheists are not making equal claims

@clreese, a theist and Christian apologist, has been kind enough to exchange tweets with me over recent days. The discussion, which has been lively and thoroughly enjoyable, is starting to become a little repetitive and I think it is time to clarify my standpoint in a longer piece.

Mr Reese asserts the following:

-God exists, is an omnipotent, supernatural being, and "has clearly communicated his existence" to Mr Reese.

-Jesus was resurrected, which provides evidence for the truth of Christianity

My position is that I have no reason to believe - or even consider - the above claims unless credible evidence can be proffered. There is an infinite number of imaginable things for which we could debate existential claims, and that would take infinite time. As I have repeatedly and publicly said, when the evidence requires me to change my stance I will do so. 

Mr Reese further claims that our positions are both based on positive assertions. This is not the case. He makes a positive assertion regarding the existence of an invisible, all-powerful being, and claims to know the desires and intentions of that being. I, on the other hand, see no reason to accept the existence of any such being in the absence of supporting evidence. And that is not the same as positively asserting that the being does not exist. There is no reason to believe that fairies exist, yet it is impossible to prove that they do not, and I do not see Mr Reese opining that non-believers in fairies are making any kind of positive assertion. 

To clarify further that the two standpoints are asymmetric, consider Russell's Teapot. Mr Reese has quoted Bertrand Russell several times and is evidently familiar with his work. Russell imagines a small china teapot in solar orbit somewhere beyond the orbit of Mars, undetectable to us at our distance. His point is that the teapot, once asserted, cannot be disproven. Thus, the burden of proof falls upon those who claim the teapot exists. 

Please note that the teapot argument is not intended to promote belief in any entity that cannot be disproven. Rather, it illustrates the futility of describing imagined entities in detail and then claiming that they might exist because their existence cannot be disproven. I am sure that there are countless wondrous things awaiting our discovery, and that many of these may be forever undiscoverable to us. But the point is that we know nothing about such things, and so it is both unnecessary and futile to make a series of specific claims about what any one of them might be. Mr Reese has made a series of very specific claims about his god, and he exhorts me to defend my position by providing 'arguments for naturalism', as if his specifically-described god could have its existence proven by default. 

Thus, Mr Reese's position as assertor carries with it the full burden of proof to substantiate his claims. My position as sceptic carries no such burden.