This is silly. You can’t prove a negative.

The burden of proof is on someone making a verifiable claim. If the claim is not verifiable it is irrelevant and can be dismissed.

I don’t think so - it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist from its absence. But that doesn’t mean the burden of proof lies on someone denying its existence. I suppose it comes down to decision making - if someone makes a decision where the existence of God is a factor, then its on them to prove the existence of God to validate their decision, and vice versa too.

On your murder metaphor - it falls apart because you don’t need to prove your innocence, simply prove the flaws in the proof of your guilt. Irrelevant of all of this, the justice system is not based on truth - its based on a reasonable bar of evidence. Many people are judged guilty of crimes they didnt commit, because the judge decided the evidence for it was high enough to clear the bar.

I think you might be just looking at this from a ‘both sides can win and coexist’ point of view, but that often isn’t true in the real life because religion often manifests in politics and policy decision making, not to mention just everyday life decision making, so every time a relevant decision is made, god’s existence should be proven by anyone for whom, it factors in their decision. The reverse can’t be true - it’s not possible to prove non-existence, because it can only be disproven by proving its contradiction.

Damn, I can’t seem to bring this around to a clear point or an elegant conclusion. The more I think about this the more I feel like I’m going in circles. Ah well, I’ll just post this for posterity. Do let me know of any holes in my logic.

Why do people think that arguing like it we are in courtroom means that I must follow courtroom procedure for arguments of duty and faith ?

The cops wouldn’t throw you in jail without actual evidence existing anywhere…

Your analogy is beyond stupid, because if it were accurate, it’d be, “the cops wouldn’t throw you in jail if no one was even dead or missing.” … and then it’d be done, because you wouldn’t be arrested.

No dead body, no murder, then there’s no murder to prove any lack of connection to!

Work on your logic skills, because they suck right now.

Or realising they’re the same abrahamic God.

Of course, that comparison fails when you remember that this is just an online forum, the risk of violent repercussions is close to Nil, and Christians get dunked on in increasingly creative ways every day. Islam just makes it so easy, and the often overblown reactions make it more rewarding to make fun of it rather than Christianity, for online trolls.

That one bald dude from the atheist experience barks at everyone.

Curiously there were enough ill-behaved Muslims in the Aughts (including the 9/11 attackers, though the attack itself wasn’t driven by Islamist extremism) that yes, countering Islamic dogma did seem more dangerous at the time.

In fact, western Christian groups and their ministries were rather prideful at the time that they’d never commit terror (id est arson or rampage killings) like those fanatical Muslim Jihadis.

And to this day, when we point to white Christian nationalist violence, they assert well they’re not real Christians.