If the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, what proof do atheists have that..?

I absolutely agree with you. Many of them have taught each other to fall back on very specific definitions of words. They've learned how to manipulate the conversation towards their own slant on things, as if all internet atheists ever do is sit on their hands lacking belief.

The burden of proof is on whomever wishes to convince others to think as s/he does. The only atheists who have no burden of proof are those who are willing to treat others respectfully. My background is the anthropology and historical development of religions.

This means I've spent most of my adult life looking at behavioural trends, with a strong interest in behaviour around issues of religion. But you don't need that sort of background to see that there are decided trends in rhetoric and attitude amongst many internet atheists. Many of them do far more than simply sit around lacking belief.

And when a growing number of them act more and more like bullies (yes, dear atheists, bullies), those of us who are paying enough attention to notice this have every right to call them on it. But they'll just dodge with their specific definitions. Because not one of them has ever done anything other than lack belief.

Right?

The burden of proof lies on the claim maker and not it's opponent. Hichen's Razor If a person did not have to provide proof or at least evidence then any claim, no matter how illogical could be made and have value. Example: I could claim that the center of Pluto is made of cotton candy and if you can not show me proof then it must be considered as possible.

Would a person be justified to tell me that I am wrong and that it is made of rock if they can not show me a core sample of Pluto? Are both phrases "the center of Pluto is made of cotton candy" and "the center of Pluto is made of rock" logically equivalent if both are based with no absolute proof? You see, science has evidence that point to evolution as being the origin of man and that the planet is billions of years old where theists have no proof to their claims.

What side would you put more trust in, a side with evidence or one without? Sure hope you never go plan on getting a job in science, medicine, law, or any other job that you need real facts about. You would probably bring a jar of leaches to cure cancer or a broken leg.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.