To begin with, I would say that I agree with the three opening statements, that positive claim require positive proof, about the the dismissing without evidence and that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What I would disagree with Dawkins is that his position does not have a positive claim. If Dawkins claims that God or gods in general do not exist, that is indeed a positive claim and requires positive proof. I do not believe in gods, and that is a personal statement of opinion, thus not a positive claim. I do not need justification to claim that, although I do have justification over why I chose this position instead of others.
The only saving grace/s an atheist has in order to claim that he or she is not committing this logical fallacy are as follows
1) Show that if God existed there should be more proof of God than there is now, (below defines why)
If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.
But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".
http://c2.com/cgi/wi...idenceOfAbsence
2) Show evidence of God's non-existence
Can an atheist please demonstrate how they are not using the argument from ignorance, (if you already admit that you are then there is no need to post here, unless you feel you want to 
)
First, I would simply like to point out I do like the 'saving grace' bit, I find it humorous
1) I am not sure if I correctly understand this, but what I do get is that atheists should find a way to prove that if God was real and as described in the Bible, then there would be more evidence of him in our world, such as direct divine intervention, miracles, justice being restored, poverty eradicated, etc etc etc, correct? Such occurrences would positively affect the likeliness of God's existence while the opposite would negatively affect the likeliness of his existence.
Well, for starters, if God were omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, he would be aware of everything, capable of doing everything, and willing to change things for the good of all. If that is so, then the existence of evil poses a problem. I find that Epicurus' take on it is very good.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
This ignores the fact that perhaps God does not know of evil, meaning that he is not omniscient, but for God to be ignorant of evil on this planet, he would have to be squarely unaware of our entire existence. It also ignores the fact that perhaps God is restraining himself for some unknown reasons. The most cited reason is 'God moves in mysterious ways.' My answer to this is either to find a way to know God better, so that we are able to avoid or minimize the circumstances where God cannot intervene, or failing that, if God moves in mysterious ways we cannot understand or predict, then why bother with God at all? The three remaining options would also be that perhaps God is not there, he does not exist, or a god does indeed exit, but he is not as described in the Bible.
2) Well, one cannot give existence of the non-existence of something, because, well, there would be nothing to show. A lack of positive evidence for the existence of gods and evidence of circumstances that would not be so if deities did exist would be as close as we could come to it.
In my mind disproving God is also impossible... But I figured it would be interesting to see how atheists attempt to settle this problem, (some may haven't even been aware of the logical fallacy, so this thread could be useful in the education of it)
I would like to point out this is the very definition of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. If there is no chance of it being wrong, then you cannot test it in any way. No matter how many times you test it, since it cannot be wrong, it will either be not looking at evidence the right way, not looking at the right time, not using the appropriate logic etc etc etc,meaning it is always the machine/method/finder's fault for the unacceptable result of God being proven false, not the fault of God not being true. Think of this: would you accept the same if someone said "I do not think evolution/gravity/atoms can be proven wrong"?
You bring the word hypothesis into this as if this is a scientific discussion. It is a philosophical discussion about detecting a spiritual (non-material) being. While it is true that science cannot test beyond materialistic constructs, this does not prove that "physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." which is the philosophy called "materialism".
http://www.answers.c...pic/materialism
The two are often sold in the same package, and this is dishonest.
Furthermore, the Bible is a historical document which provides the basis for our beliefs as Christians (our philosophy) but this does not limit the Bible to the philosophical realm. We derive historic and scientific ideas from the Bible which can be investigated through forensic science, historical documentation, and scientific experiments.
Now does that clear up the tangled mess that public schools and many atheists make of science and philosophy?
A hypothesis is not intrinsically scientific. For example, I hypothesize that if I do not study, I will not pas my test. No science in there.
You can pose within your hypothesis that you wish to detect a spiritual non-material entity, however you will never be able to verify if you have succeeded or not in truly contacting such an entity. If you were for example to come into contact with the dead, ghosts, should of the eparted, call them as you wish, and get them to tell you information you would have no way of knowing, then yes, I would agree that there is something there. However, the moment you get knowledge of anything that is contained within this physical world, then it does tread upon grounds of scientific examination. Doesn't mean science can find the cause and understand it, but they might come to the conclusion that there is something out there they cannot measure, or study, but that there is something indeed.
If the spirit//entity says what its name is, its purpose, what is its favorite color, etc etc etc, then yes, you might have come into contact with another being, yes you might be convinced that you have indeed come into contact with another being, but there is no way for you to measure if such an event truly happened, or if it was just a hallucination on your part.
TL;DR, you can make hypotheses all you want, if they are not falsifiable you can never prove that it is real. You might be convinced of it, but don't expect to convince others with anything more than "trust me I know it's true."
Also, I wish to thank you for not taking the bible as the literal word of God whose every command must be obeyed to a T, and at least considering it or accepting that it is also a historical and philosophical document. There are too many people who simply hold up their bible, scream "The Truth!!!" and refuse to consider anything that is not consistent with their narrow view of the bible. Again, thank you for not being a radical fundamentalist.
I would simply like to ask, how many scientific ideas were derived solely from the bible, and what were the benefits of those ideas? People may have had religious motivation to undertake scientific scrutiny of God's creation, but you will notice it is not the bible that produced any kind of solid evidence, mechanism, or understanding of the world around us, it was the effort of those dedicated men and women. I prefer to give credit where credit is due.
I was not aware of that mess, seeing as I spent all my elementary and high school years in a christian school system.
