Dear atheists,

[henryp]

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.

What isn't logical/philisophical for Atheists is the existence of free will which a lot of neuroscientists seem to think can't exist with our understanding of physics.  

Reading people talk about free will, and people talk about the existence of God is alarmingly similar.  I was pretty surprised to see where this community was on the topic given the general disdain for believing in things that have no evidence of existing outside of some shoddy philosophical thinking.