CowboysFromHell said:
This thread has now turned into "Is Christianity Irrational?".
By all means, carry on. The discussion is interesting. Just thought this was funny.
Although, really, that's been the discussion from the very beginning. The burden of proof is on the assertion being made, not the nonbelief of it.
That's silly because it can't ever proven one way or another.
"Burden of proof" is a legal term of art, where
proof is a synonym for evidence, not a synonym for sound deduction. I agree with tonydead that the burden of proof (or, if you prefer, the burden of evidence) falls on anyone making an assertion. Almost no synthetic claim can be proven; but that doesn't mean that such claims -- including claims about gods -- shouldn't be supported by evidence.
Note, however, that "no gods exist" is an assertion just as surely as "at least one god exists" is -- so I don't think it's necessarily the case that atheists have no burden of proof. (And here we might distinguish between strong atheism and weak atheism, or indeed other forms of atheism.)
In any event, I claim that no gods exist, and I can prove it to my own satisfaction. (But I treat it as more of an analytic claim than a synthetic one.)