There is no god or gods!

[Dranu]

Actually the question is, "Why do I have to substantiate a claim of non-existence of a deity when it is the theist making the positive claim?".

Ahh ok, in that case you would be right in consenting God cannot be disproven. Also there may be no logical burden on you in relation to God's existence. If you do not claim God does not exist, then there is no logical burden of proof in relation to God's existence on your position (as long as you also do not claim God exists). Of course you may have a burden of proof for asserting that the agnostic position is thus the right position.

However, the so-called 'hard' atheist has a burden of proof just like a theist for God's existence (for they also make an assertion; namely 'God does not exists').

Followed by, "What possible proof could there be for a negative?". Ergo, the Russell's Teapot example.

It would be wrong to say a negative cannot be disproven. It is done all the time with great ease in many things (though not all, obviously).

As to the revelence of the teapot to all of this, if I can prove there is no teapot, I can use the same technique to prove there is no god.

Please do demonstrate the (as shown in my first post) impossible. It is logically impossible to show God is impossible (whereas it is logically possible for just about everything else even if improbable if not practically impossible). This is a fairly unique quality of God.

I believe a 'Pink Unicorn' could possibly exist, therefore possibly a 'Pink Unicorn' does exist.

Na-nah na-nah boo boo! Reductio ad absurdum.

Hmm? I don't follow. Perhaps you are trying to criticize the Ontological argument? If so, the term of art to be used is 'overload argument' (such as the famous Island argument) not 'Reductio ad Absurdum' (which is actually what St. Anselm's Ontological argument is; it assumes a premise to demonstrate its absurdity form what follows)

---