Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Jenny A]

So if you posit unicorns, invisible purples nothings, godzilla, Allah, Joseph Smith's golden tablets, Zeus, Thor, Nessy, cold fusion, the City of Atlanta, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, do not exist the burden of proof is on you Randy.

Exactly. Which is why I don't go to unicorn forums, Jenny. I don't want to have to get into all that in order to prove my point of view. (Especially since I am agnostic about Nessie!). However, I have been to the City of Atlanta (note the avatar).

In return, I expect that anyone who waltzes into a Christianity subforum (even in an Atheist Forum) and says, "God does not exist" has assumed the burden of proof. That's simply how debates are structured. I didn't make that rule.

Who is it that claims he can prove god doesn't exist?  The burden of proof is always on the positive claim, no matter who is making the claim.  Unless, and until someone proves: unicorns, Nessie, or the City of Atlantis (Atlanta I've visiting soon), or god, I see no reason to believe in any of them.  

Seriously, none of those things can be proven not to exist.  We (at least I hope it's we) don't believe in them because of the lack of evidence for them.  If you don't believe in them, then you understand why I don't believe in your tri-god Yahweh/Jesus/Vague-Spirit-Thingy who is both three separate things and yet only one thing despite 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 /= 1

Jenny, are you seriously suggesting that the evidence for the historical Jesus is on par with the evidence for pots of gold or unicorns?

Nope.  There's evidence for the historical Jesus' existence,  just not for his divinity, and precious little for most of his bio.  And no real evidence for Yahweh or the spirit divine or otherwise.