Completely skipped this section.

[MJ the Skeptical]

If you look you'll see I was called a creotard first.

False, I commented on your attitude specifically. You're the one who made the sweeping generalization.

I'm not saying that makes me right...

"...but I said it anyway"

A apart from this retaliation I have remained civil in this conversation, unlike the op.

You labeled me presumptuous when it was you who didn't understand where the burden of proof rests in the first place. You should know that the positive claimer has the burden of proof, and it can't be self-proving by the holy book itself. That would be low standards of evidence (and circular reasoning once again), which doesn't meet the burden of proof, to any degree scientifically. Also, it's pretty uncivil to start debates in someone's introduction thread about their opinion. You equivocate a statement of opinion with a sweeping statement, and since you've been corrected again on what I said, you got it now, right? And the fact of the matter is, if the burden of proof on your positive claim was met, this debate wouldn't exist.

The op made the sweeping statement about all religions, not me.

First of all, what Atheist doesn't think the religions burden of proof hasn't been met? get real.

Second of all..Straw man. It was an opinion, "I have never been a believer myself even as a child, mainly since no religion has met their burden of proof" this is clearly a statement of opinion and true at that. The positive claims about the universe have the burden of proof so they need to meet the proper standards of evidence. And if you didn't get it before what I said, now you do. So you can stop this fallacious burden shifting.

Besides, atheotard seems to be a pretty accurate description for this person. Unlike his insults directed at me which he makes without knowing my stance on anything he's said about me.

Oh please, get over yourself. You not only claimed I was presumptuous when you were wrong but claimed I was ignorant on the topic when again, you were wrong. I mean, not knowing what you're talking about with the burden of proof, where it rests, and how you actually think your religion has met the rigorous and proper standards of evidence, is just bad my friend. Burden of proof has been met huh? Get your Nobel Prize and prove there's a Christian sky daddy...