Anyone interested in me explaining the burden of proof fallacy?
Let's say the police stop you on the side of the road one day. I point you out and say "He took $100 from me." You know full well you never took that money from me, but you just happened to have $100 in your pocket.
You're arrested, and taken to trial. At trial, you show your ATM receipt for $100, and the film footage of you at the ATM. However, because you cannot prove that the $100 bills you have are the same ones that you took from the ATM, you're convicted and charge guilty.
Does that sound fair to you? After all, you know you didn't take $100 from me, but I still accused you of taking the money.
That's the same logic you're using when you claim it's the atheists that have to prove god. You're telling atheists that we took your $100, even though you can't prove it. It's a logical fallacy.
So next time you think about asking an atheist "prove God doesn't exist," think about the $100 bill.
Are there any other fallacies that need to be explained?
Mark, you see. By me asking you to prove that God exists is the exact same thing as me saying to you "Prove to me that I stole your $100 bill."
You see? See how natural that is? You make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. The default position is to say I didn't take your $100 bill. I don't expect you to understand.
Humans strive to understand. They strive for knowledge. The Argument from Ignorance pretty much ruled man-kinds thoughts since the begining of our species. When we didn't know, we assigned that phenomena to some gods. Now we have a falsifiable, self-correcting method to discover the natural world.
As for circumstantial evidence, I can verify my own funds (as I have done so with the receipt). This is enough to disqualify his circumstantial evidence. However, in bizarro-wacko world where you are guilty until innocent, I cannot prove that the $100 bill I have is separate from his alleged stolen $100. Normally, I would be innocent because he cannot prove that my $100 bill is HIS $100 bill.
It's a flawed analogy, as all are. However, it best explains the idea of Burden of Proof.
"Delusions" are thoughts of things that do not exist in reality. A deity would be such a thing. The religious generally believe in deities.
Appeal to Ignorance: Just because you can't explain the phenomenon, does not automatically make it the work of a deity.