Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[RoadRunner79]

There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

How many times does this have to be explained to you?

If someone has presented you with an idea and says that the burden of proof is on you to disprove the idea, work out what the null hypothesis is and then put their evidence for the idea against it.
The person claiming something is possible or has happened needs to produce evidence to refute the null hypothesis.
If they have considerable and well-tested evidence, the burden of proof may reasonably be considered to be on the person claiming that the evidence does not hold.

Regarding the highlight: That is where you fail.

The Null Hypothesis

I don't see where this changes what I said about the one making the claim having the burden of proof (regardless to whether that claim is considered a positive or negative claim).
I would encourage you and others to look this up... Wikipedia calls the notion that the negative claim is somehow exempt from the burden of proof pseudo-logic. 

To be honest, the null hypothesis seems more akin to a skeptical position to me.  Where it is not really  making a claim.  How do you feel that this makes it unnecessary for one making a negative claim to not have to support their assertion?

---

There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

Is god/supernatural belief falsifiable in your opinion? If it is, then in your opinion, what makes it falsifiable, and out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying the existence of the Christian deity or any deity?

I think that there are claims within Christianity which are falsifiable, and those which are not.   There certainly seem to be a fair number of atheists who think that it is falsifiable.

---

There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

And this is where you have an issue. Atheists, for the most part, do NOT claim no deities exist. Instead, they claim that there is no proof of the existence of deities.

No issue here.... I didn't say anything about atheists here.  Although your jumping to that in immediate defense from talking about those making negative claims is interesting.

But, again, the *default* is non-existence. This is as true for deities as it is for fundamental particles and it is for Bigfoot. The burden of proof is *always* on the side making the existence claim.

And there is good reason for this. An absolute disproof of non-existence is very rare *for anything*. Again, this is true for deities, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster. Especially if something can 'hide' effectively, an absolute disproof is impossible.

But a proof of existence is easy if the thing in question does, in fact, exist: produce it.

because of this dichotomy, it is the positive existence statement that has the burden of proof *almost always*.

The one exception I can think of is when the object in question is so well defined that we know *when* it *should* appear. If it fails to then appear, the non-existence is shown. But this is a very rare case.

So the ball is in your court. Either
1) produce a deity to show the existence.
OR
2) Give a situation where that deity is guaranteed to be observable if it does exist. This is a stronger condition, but is required if you demand a proof of non-existence.

In the absence of either 1) or 2), the default is a position of non-existence.

Sorry, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   You do not get to default your position in, and shift the burden of proof.  I would suggest you look this up.  You haven't given any reason to exempt a negative claim from the burden of proof. 

This is not to say, that one cannot have a neutral or skeptical position (not making a claim either way).  Really the skeptic is not making any claim except for one about their own mental state in regards to the matter.  For this you do not need to fulfill the burden of proof, because you are not making  a claim outside of your own subjective self.

---

There is no reason or rule that states only the one making the positive claim had the burden of proof. It is on anyone making a claim.   If if you claim something as false, you are still making a claim of truth

I thought you were somewhat brighter than G-C.  Perhaps I was mistaken.

You said:  "I thought you were somewhat brighter than G-C.  Perhaps I was mistaken."

I say:  Perhaps you should read a little more carefully and with comprehension before questioning someones intelligence.  All I said, is that those making negative claims have a burden of proof.  This statement doesn't entail anything that would mean the one making a positive claim does not have a burden as well (both sides can have a burden of proof). 

Your stick figures in addition to being out of context, also share the happy distinction of not representing what I believe at all.  So while you are questioning how bright people are.... I would say that you failed epically here.