One of the difficulties in discussion all things religion with Atheists is their unwillingness to defend any criticism they have about the existence of God. By and large they feel they have no obligation of defend the claims they make as though they can simply hurl criticism. This mentality of “prove my unquantified assertions wrong” is worthy an eye-roll.
But lets say for the sake of the argument that the Atheist was under no obligation at all to defend his own claims, why wouldn’t you do so anyway? After all if the Atheist holds the intellectual high ground, offering a justification for assertions made should be child’s play. Who knows, maybe a well reasoned argument might convince someone your view of whether God exists is actually true. It would certainly fare better than ‘nuh uh’.
Sifting Reality 
Why do you feel so strongly that not believing your god exists is a declaration that your god does not exist?
Because it is. If you believe he doesnt exist then you believe he doesnt exist. Its not that you merely believe it, you assert it. It’s more than just believing he doesnt exist. You and others hurl assertions and presume that we must refute your assertions when in fact if you offer an idea or alternate explanation you must justify your idea or explanation. And even if you didnt have to, you ought to.
I guess you simply lack the understanding of rejecting a premise.
I don’t believe in Scientology or thetans either, but that doesn’t mean I’m making any declaration about the nonexistence of thetans.
If you don’t believe in the existence of thetans, John, please tell me how you would go about proving they do not exist since you think it’s a assertion that must be defended.
Again, if it was simply that you believed — privately — that God doesn’t exist that would be one thing. But you dont leave it to private belief, you and others vocalize and assert it.
Now, ive never made any claims about thetans and if they exist so I have no burden just like you dont, for that. As soon as I say “I think the thetans dont exist” I then have a burden to provide reasons.
An assertion only needs to be defended if ot is made. So if I never say “I believe God exists” I’ll never have to defend it. But when I do make that assertion I am obligated to defend it.
Sorry, but you’re missing the point.
If you’re on a Scientologist’s blog and discussing the existence of thetans, do you have to prove that they don’t exist? No, the burden would be on the Scientologist claiming them to exist.
If I’m on a Christian blog discussing the existence of god, do I have to prove that god doesn’t exist? No, the burden would be on the Christian claiming god exists.
It’s a shame you can’t seem to get that.
What you dont get is that I agree that I have a burden to argue for God. What you dont get is that if you speak up and say “that reason you gave doesn’t work” you have a burden to argue why. If you say “the bible is just a myth amd fairy tales” you have a burden to argue why. If you say “God is just an invention” you have a burden to argue why.
Non-believers give several reasons, but it’s hard to get past the wall erected by those who believe their sacred texts are inerrant. Communication seems impossible and those reasons are disputed and sidetracked.