Originally posted by Rogue JediWell, the thing is, the burden of proof does rest with he who makes the claim that something exists. "No evidence = no existence" is a more reasonable assumption than "no evidence = possible existence."
I love how Atheists are all "You cannot prove God exists!!!" and when I return the sentiment, when I say "You cannot DISPROVE his existence," they blow it off, as if their way is by default, correct.
Pursuing truth, IMO, means recognizing limitations to one's philosophy. Yes, the atheist should acknowledge that "no evidence = no existence" is still an assumption, but the theist needs to recognize that--based on a foundation of reliable, demonstrable proof--neither can a transcendent philosophy stand as equal to an empirical one.