Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[rexbeccarox]

The OP seems to make it clear we're talking about atheists debating Christians. My point is that it's pointless to waste time focusing on refuting specific details of Christianity if the whole of Christianity has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Again, by whose standards? Yours? 

Is that an objective standard or a subjective standard? I ask because despite the fact that the membership of this tiny forum disagrees almost unanimously with theists (of all varieties), they do outnumber skeptics by a whopping margin. IOW, you are vastly outnumbered by people who think there is adequate evidence to justify belief in a supreme being.

I grant that numbers alone are meaningless when it comes to determining truth, but in the final analysis, each individual is making personal (subjective) judgment calls about how much credence to give the "evidence" for or against Baha'u'llah, the Buddha, the Prophet Muhammed and you know who.

Finally, when you make the positive assertion, "There is no evidence for God", the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that there is none whatsoever. How would you go about this?

(bold mine)

There is a shit ton of irony in this, considering the thread's topic.