One thing to joke that I think make on the sites that I maintain is look at the stats and see what terms (words or phrases) people are entering in search engines in order to come up here. One that I noticed yesterday is this: "the burden of proof belongs to atheists" (read "burden" to be Portuguese in Brazil; here in Portugal would "burden").
There is no way of knowing if it was a question or a statement, since even in the case of the first case in general a typical user does not enter punctuation marks in the polls does. But I have seen this same statement be made more than once, so I want to answer it here.
To get the answer "standard", which already mentioned in the FAQ : Who suggests something, who says that something exists, does it have the burden of proof. That is, if I say that there is a flying spaghetti monster created the universe and loves pirates, I who have to present evidence and proof of this, are you not that you will have the responsibility to "disprove". If you say that God exists - whatever you believe in his version - it is your responsibility to prove it, or at least provide sufficient evidence for the likelihood of "there" to be superior to "no." If we are talking about criminal matters, this is called "innocent until proved guilty," that you have to admit, it makes sense. Who says (and no, do not try to get around with something like "you are affirming the non-existence") is that you must present evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt."
A response that some Christians give here is this: "then you are claiming the existence of something much more amazing to me: a 100% natural universe without a creator or a supernatural creation, which somehow came from nothing and appeared stars, planets, and life at least in ours. All naturally. How? Explains it. Prove it. "
It seems to make sense. To be put in words the logic inherent in this kind of reasoning, that is: not to believe in God, an atheist has to explain everything in detail, as the origin of the universe, evolution, etc.., And any trace of " it still does not know "immediately becomes invalid and this explanation" test "the" was God. " That is, even if the atheist - or science - explain 99%, the lack of explanation at this time for the remaining 1% immediately "proof" that there may have been an atheist as you suggest, "proof" that the universe can be 100% natural, and "was God" "wins" "by default." (in quotation marks followed by three things, I really have a strange mind ...)
Why this "default"? Why is the atheist has to explain everything and taste everything, and if it fails in the smallest thing, the believer "win" automatically, without having to explain himself nothing? I suppose it's a matter of habit, who has learned from childhood that God exists and created everything and that is self-evident, you will see all this as perfectly normal and obvious, and an alternative explanation that goes against what we always believed - even if it is an explanation that does not involve supernatural beings and "miracles" - you will look totally weird, absurd and surreal.
Moreover, the believer is accustomed to a seemingly perfect and final explanation: "God did it". Science is constantly evolving, and has no problem admitting that there is much still unexplained, is still much to understand. Therefore, the believer will feel - and this is understandable - that atheists are asking you to replace a simple explanation, complete, and (for him) obvious explanation for a complex, incomplete and (for him) fantastic.
The problem is that "God did it" does not explain anything, just move the mystery a step up. That is, the science attempts to explain, for example, the origin of the universe of a natural way, but it can not do completely, although there are many hypotheses open. The believer then replies: "ah, you do not know, but I know: it was God." But does not explain how, as he knows, or what God, nor the most important of all: where is God? Who created God? The answer "no, God has always existed" is a " special pleading "because God is there to be an exception to the rule that there must be a creator for everything? If God does not need a creator, then why not consider that perhaps the universe does not need a creator? If God always existed, why not the universe? And so on.
In other words, if you explain something like "it was magic," then either you explain this spell (next step), or it is not at all an explanation. As believers never explain - nor have ways of explaining - "magic" / God, the bottom can not explain absolutely nothing, while science does - little by little, but it does. And the idea that science has to be perfect and complete already or "God did it" "wins" does not automatically make any sense, is the equivalent of a criminal investigation, said to a detective that he has to get complete evidence , final and perfect that the criminal is X, otherwise Y is the criminal ... even without any shred of evidence pointing to Y.
