The default position.

I most certainly do. And since i think this has a "religion section" connotation to it. That is precisely why i never advocate religion. I favor spiritual beliefs that i think have evidence and logic to them. And, it has taken me years to come to a conclusion i would say is a logical platform. I've never done it through blind faith. I've always followed the path that can answer the most questions in considering a spiritual view.  

For instance, 100 generations ago a family member looked in the box and said it's red. Then said no one else is suppose to look and just believe him. 100 generations later after being passed down... this person says it's red. That has a little more logic to it but still... why didn't the person want anyone else to look? Was the person credible? Was the person colorblind? Would someone down the line not remember correctly?  ... these questions should always be asked and considered. I wouldn't say religion is as blind as this color example bc it does have some "evidence" to it. But, i do not think that this evidence, in the end of the day, holds up to the questions one can ask about said religion. Some answer better, but i'd rather go with the one that can answer as many questions as possible. That's why i hate it when religious people say "i just have faith it's right bc YOU Can't know." I call bs. I can know, or at least know and question to a better certainty and i'm open minded and not lazy enough to do so. In my line of questioning and going down rabbit holes, i truly think i've thought of a platform that is most logical to be true. Still... i haven't looked in the box so "i don't know" is always going to be a part of that truth. But unlike this example, the platform i choose to go with has evidence (weak), answers questions, and is logical. If i were to make a bet, i'd make a bet on logic not faith.     

Just as this color example. I would go off logic not faith. Faith is useless in my opinion. 

The problem isn't the op it is your refusal to acknowledge the true definition of a ball.

The BOP falls on you to prove that the ball is red. I would not trust your word unless you opened the box. This seems to be a Schrodinger's Cat situation, where the ball could be any color until you open the box. I would know about cats, per my profile pic. I do not see your point though. What exactly are you trying to prove with this thought experiment?

We would seem to. It is equally important to me that I believe as few falsehoods as possible and that I believe as many true things as possible. Believing a falsehood is the only guaranteed failure in that case.

It clearly isn't as you guaranteed you didn't believe the truth.

"a round or roundish body or mass"

The dictionary does not say that a ball must be red.

But I never rejected the arbitrary definition that the box diviner made. The box diviner is responding to me in non sequiturs because the Op can't come to terms with the fact that his ball in a box parable is stupid.

What makes it stupid? Not trying to be pedantic we are actually getting close to my point i think. Now if you will just fill in the blanks.

But I am open to begin believing the truth when any information about the truth is revealed and I never believed a falsehood on the way. 

You did. By not believing anything you forcibly failed to believe the truth regarding the matter which your hypothesis angles as the thing to solve.

I am trying to determine wether or not rejecting a claim requires a burden of proof. 

You are too prideful to say "I don't know", which is why you don't accept it as a valid option. 

You lack the charity to believe that someone making a claim believes what they say.

You think you must either accept or reject a claim.

But.

No room for maybe.

So you regard not believing in an unsubstantiated claim is effectively believing a falsehood? I'm afraid I must disagree. A lack of belief is not a belief.

You cannot lack belief. It is psychologically impossible for sentient beings to lack belief.

You misunderstand my position and mistake the rejection of a claim for the assertion of the opposite claim and did not answer my question. Now what makes it stupid?

You can lack belief in a particular proposition. 

Your responses to my answers.

Stupid.

No, you cannot. You genuinely cannot.

Do you believe there are an even number of stars?

If you accept the definition of a ball as a spherical object which is red although it may appear to be another color then you would also have to accept that the ball is red. The claim would be correct if you would just accept the definition. Why would it be dumb for you to accept that definition?

Actually I am very sure there are an odd number, the north star ensures that.

I will grant that whoever is telling me this believes it. 

I don't really know if there is even a ball in the box. 

So maybe there is a ball in the box. Why not open the box?

In debate, I would imagine that any rebuttal would require a degree of evidence. So rejecting a claim in a debate should be coupled with logic or a citation. That said, if I were to make a claim that in 20 years, all of life will be obliterated by an mass uprising of minions, I ought to have evidence as well. Without a logical premise for my original claim, there is no responsibility for my opponent to refute my claim with significant evidence. One could just say that I resorted to be an "ipse dixit (1)." (In Latin, "ipse dixit" means "he himself said it.")

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ipse%20dixit

*My last sentence accidentally contained the word "be." Oops.

So do you feel that if you reject the claim that the ball is red you have a burden of proof?

How exactly does the north star guarantee anything of the sort? I am genuinely baffled by this pisition.

Definition of reject courtesy Merriam-webster...

to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use

Rejecting is not the same as saying "I don't know, maybe"

Some boxes cannot be opened. Some truths cannot be known by evidence. This is a hypothetical situation. In the hypothetical neither you nor the claimant have looked in the box. The claimant has total faith in the ball and it's redness and you have no evidence with which to disprove this hypothesis. The given definition assures that all balls are red so it is reasonable to assume that the ball is red wouldn't you agree?

Nope. What you engaged in was an ipse dixit. I suppose that responding to your argument by saying that your argument is an ipse dixit is, in itself, a form of proof. However, I am under no obligation to prove you wrong in a debate. If anything, you have not fulfilled your BOP by proving the ball's color, (assuming that is what you want to prove.)