Proving a negative

[pineapplebunnybounce]

However, what I do find most annoying is that whenever anyone raises the question of "disproving god", scores of other atheists rise up in arms crying "but we are not obligated to" - completely missing the point that this isn't question of obligation. Every discussion I've seen on the topic of "proving a negative" has been diverted to a discussion about how the burden of proof doesn't work that way - regardless of it being the original issue.

I have no problem doing that, and it's a valid strategy. Makes them think about how to convince others to disprove their gods or at least take their claims seriously. That's when they realize there's not much going on for their argument.

You can't disprove everyone's god for them, and expect them to stop believing. Most atheists only disproved their own god. God is a personal idea, it continues to warp even as versions of it is disproven by someone else. Only you can disprove your own god, if someone else did it, probably wouldn't take. Evolution disproved creation, history disproved most of the bible. Didn't change a damn thing for those religious people.

Only reason I do it is because it might poke holes in their religions enough for them to question it themselves. But both strategy, IMO, does the same thing, and so are equally effective. Some may argue that the first is better, because the second makes them defensive.