There is no god or gods!

[Darkstar]

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').

Well, if you have the burden of proof for saying that god exists, and you cannot prove it, it is logical to conclude that he does not. If you say "god does not exist" as a conclusion drawn from the fact that you cannot provide evidence he does, I don't think it entails the same burden.

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).

Not all, as in those things which are non-falsifiable by definition. God is non-falsifiable in the way that he has been defined, therefore the 'unknowable' god of which most theists speak cannot be disproven absolutely.

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.

This is a fairly unique quality of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (Well, it is...) Alternatively, this is a fairly common quality among the thousands of gods various religions have claimed to exist.

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)

---

Which does not refute the first part of his statement in any way...