The OP was about atheists and believers having little reason for opposing each others or flaming each others. And the thread proved it riht for a while. Then, a fundamentalist ultraconservative christian came and started to more and more shamelessly sprout out terrifyingly bigotted views, and militant atheists arrived to vent out about believers being horrible people. So, well, there....

Your avatar should be a Capuchin monkey with a pimp hat.

I really Hate World Governments they can all go shove their flags Fair up where the sun doesn't shine! Like my Countried flag does NOT determine who I am.

I was thinking a spider monkey.

That's never going to happen. Unless someone admits they believe in a fictitious creature from a story book. Which cristians will never do.

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

WE WILL NEVER DISCUSS NORMALLY UNLESS YOU ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND DUMB - AND IT IS YOUR FAULT.

There is absolutely nothing on this earth that can prove there is a god. At least... not a chrisitan one :D Flying Spaghetti monster on the other hand...

Yes, and there is nothing that can disprove it because the thingy is by definition outside logic, and basically made of 'joker cards' against any questionning.

There are other things to discuss about religion (similarities and differences of inferences on various subjects, consequences of belief differences on moral views and social policies, perceptions of third party beliefs, selection of moral authorities and individual differenciations, sense of conformism and isolation, etc) apart from the puerile matter of "it exists, it doesn't exist, my arbitrary belief is stronger than yours" and the sterile fights around it.

That's why the burden of proof here lies on the individuals that believe in God. You can never prove a negative, but you can prove a positive. Eventually.

The fact that it's not something that's readily solvable, is a pretty clear indication of how pointless the whole debate is.

You've seen him too? :O

There is no "burden of proof" in a system which denies the utility of proof (and actually works against it, as faith is precisely an act of spiritual transgression of rationality). "Burden of proof" is, itself, as much of an attempt to reduce one system to the other as pascal-like "choice to belief" is in the other direction.

And yes, the "does the god exist or not" is a pointless debate. But is also a detail, in front of the actual stakes around religion, and the range of discussions that can stem from them.

The burden of proof doesn't come and go just because people find it to be inconvenient. It's still there, it's just that some people will believe in such silliness regardless of truth.

Oh come on, I'm trying to inject some humor before people start burning each other....again.

No, it does depend on the context. Knowledge, science, and law require "burden of proof". Belief, by definition (as opposed to knowledge) doesn't.