Both dictionaries do agree that belief may be defined as a strongly held opinion or conviction of the truth, if I may be allowed the leeway to somewhat cherry-pick the definitions. I would argue that belief should be defined in this case as a strongly held conviction of the truth of a particular position. When paired with my definition of spiritualism, I think it would be very difficult for any atheist to argue that their position is not a belief.
I do understand the reluctance of atheists to admit to anything that smacks of the supernatural. The word belief conjures a mind image, for both the atheist and the theist that defines it in the mind as something that is a "feeling" not a fact. This mind image is justified because neither theist nor atheist has any proof upon which to base their opinion. However, under the definition of belief that I have specified, the word belief fits either position.
You Can't Prove a Negative
This is simply untrue. It comes from a misunderstanding of the epistemological principle of the "argument from ignorance". An argument from ignorance states that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false; however the opposite is also fallacious in that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true. Both atheists and theist use this argument on a regular basis and it is pointless because either side may use it with equal validity, because both sides of the argument are equally fallacious.
For example, an atheist may make the claim that a deity does not exist because there is no proof for the existence of a deity. This argument, from a logical perspective, is false. To state categorically that a deity does not exist because there is no evidence for said deity is no truer than to state that a deity exists because there is no evidence against the existence of a deity.
Further, it is possible to "prove a negative". Let us suppose that two people are standing in an empty room that contains a box in the middle of the floor. These two people did not see who placed the box in the middle of the floor, there are no markings on the box and no other evidence of what the box may contain. The two people can not examine the box in any way other than visually. One person, upon reflection, believes that the box contains something. The other, that the box contains nothing. Once this is decided they go up and open the box to determine what is within. If the box contains nothing the "negative" is proved.
This example, of course, does not work when one is discussing the existence or non-existence of a deity. We can not "open the box". However, as with the argument from ignorance it is equally fallacious or equally valid for either side to use this argument.
The basic misunderstanding in this case is the usage of the word "negative". A negative statement, in logic, is not negative simply because it contains a negating statement. A negative statement, in logic, is one that is contrary to another statement. For example, if I were to say, “The sky is blue” and someone else were to say, “The sky is not blue” these two statements are at the same time both positive and negative from an epistemological standpoint. Thus, to say that the burden of proof is upon the person stating the positive position is equally valid for either side of the discussion.
Now, on to the arguments using “Russell's Teapot” as an argument against a deity. Bertrand Russell was not using this argument so much to "disprove" the existence of a deity as he was using it to ridicule and attack organized religion. However, the basis of his observation is invalid, because it can be neither proved nor disproved and as such is fallacious, despite the overall truth of his statement.
Conclusion
In my essay last week, I attempted to say what I wanted to say without resorting to arguments with which the "average individual" (there is no such thing), would not be acquainted. This was obviously a failure on my part, as it did not allow me to articulate exactly what I wanted to say, without introducing words and statements that some people would take in such a way contrary to my meaning. I hope that I have, to some extent, rectified that in this essay.
