The nature of evidence

[bennyboy]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim.  I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this.  Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.

Atheists don't need to prove that God is not real. They have only to demonstrate that there are good reasons not to be theist. You have an idea, they point out the many ways in which your arguments are insufficient to sway opinion or to demonstrate the truth of your idea. In doing this, they have proven their position already, since the weakness of your argument is really the only claim they were ever making.

X-tian: There's a God, and He is real
Atheist: Show this is true
X-tian: *talk about infinite regress, or special feelings, or the definition of "evidence"*
Atheist: Okay, none of that demonstrates your idea to be true
X-tian: Prove it's not true.

This is an epic debating fail. The Atheist is not making a positive claim, but rather indicating the failure of your argument to persuade. That kind of claim is self-validating: if you had made a persuasive argument, the person would have been persuaded. You don't NEED evidence of lake of persuasion, other than the obvious fact that the listener to your ideas wasn't persuaded.