Illustrating the burden of proof - pay me!

[Anomalocaris]

Do you think this dialogue would be an interesting way to illustrate the burden of proof?

To me it seems like an example of both sides avoiding real discussion.

"Burden of proof" is a legal term and is seldom useful in talking about metaphysics. Thinking adults who want an honest discussion should have reasons for their positions, and be willing to state these reasons. This applies to religious people and atheists alike.

For example, if your friendly neighborhood Christian asserts "God loves you!" You might respond "Ha! prove it! That's on you! Can't do it, can you!?" I suppose this might feel good if your goal is to "win" somehow.

But it makes a better, more productive discussion if you explain to him the reasons why you find his claim unpersuasive. As a thinking adult, you will surely have reasons.

This is assuming you want to have a good-faith discussion, which I realize often isn't the case on the Internet.

The search for the truth is not a mere matter of persuasion.   it is mostly importantly a matter of shared intellectual honesty.   he who posits something and then lay burden of proof upon someone else without acknowledging his ow proposition is therefore worthless because no one, least of all him had yet troubled to support it, is being intellectual dishonest.

but of course Belaqua is always supernaturally sensitive to any hint that the scrutinizing spotlight of any discussion may be meander  habitual almost invariable intellectual dishonesty of christianity,  and jump to obfuscate well in advance lest actually reaching there and christianity be seen yet again in less than pleasing light.

---