Dear atheists,

[TheRealJoeFish]

Atheists just have different burden's of proof related to the issues touched upon by their disbelief. For example, prove that your atheism does not entail existential, moral, and/or rational nihilism.

I think the difference there is that "atheism does (or does not) entail existential nihilism" is a logical/philosophical question rather than an empirical one.  Surely, proofs about existence (say, of a deity) are proved with different methods, and require different burdens, than proofs about philosophies/logic.  Obviously, there is some overlap, but the theist's position depends on existence, while the atheist's position depends on non-existence.  This has nothing to do with, say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," as it follows from the nature itself (rather than the content) of the various claims.

Maybe.