The problem is that depending on the nature of the statement, atheist may actually carry the burden of proof. Since atheist attempt to avoid the universal negative "God doesnt exist" they wisely say things like "it is unlikely" or "there is little to no evidence for it." Statements like these MAY, depending on their phrasing, require the burden of proof but usually the burden remains with the theist.

However, many of the New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and your pal Werleman, go beyond mere skepticism to statements like "Science disproves God," or "God cannot exist" etc., in which case they have made a positive claim ("condition Q holds such that God cannot exist") and thus they do in fact contract the burden of proof to prove that such a condition in fact obtains.

In the same way, as a theist, if I am arguing FOR God, then the burden of proof is on me at that moment for those statements. However, if I am debating with an anti-theist/atheist and they make such a claim, I can object and place the burden on them since they have now posited a positive statement of fact.

The "theists always have the burden of proof" objection is a usual atheist tactic similar to that of playing the Ockham's Razor card. Neither are universal or even logically necessary for the most part. But when we can try to sound smart and hope to confuse the other person, why not give it a try right? ;)

Well this explains "The Invention of Lying" ...I just watched that movie, and it was hilarious. But I can't imagine non-Athiests getting a big kick out of it.

I stumbled upon this sight and was hoping to see an interesting mix of science and evolution.Instead all I see is an anti-christian site.Is there anywhere I can find a sight that isn't completely dominated by religion? This is called a godless blog but it seems to be only about the idea of god...where do the atheists go that are sick of hering about christianity?