It is often said that the grandeur of a supreme deity is beyond the realm of human comprehension. Yet comparing one's personal God to a giant spaghetti monster, pink unicorn, or Grandpa's invisible clitoris is, to most theists, a dishonest, insulting, and therefore degrading absurdity. There is no objective reason to differenciate God from the aforementioned metaphors, but rather the difference is the result of a person's attempt to rationalize God, because one obviously cannot be supreme and concurrently both limited and stupid-looking. No, these attempts to rationalize God are inconsistent with God's incomprehensibility. Indeed this claim is tantamount to the claim that we conveniently know enough about God to deduce that he has blond chest hairs, but not enough to deduce that he has a chest - or how the former may occur without the latter.

With this aside, I am now free to use as many inappropriate metaphors as I please.

With this, in the absence of direct proof of God's existance, I may juxtapose the belief in God to any other absurd claim that is without evidence. We have now established that burden of proof does indeed rest with theists, and that the challenge "prove that there is no God" is not only inappropriate, but nonsensical.

Referring to my favorite burden of proof metaphor, it is not my job to initiate a mulluscan genocide in order to prove to you that there is no such thing as an immortal snail, but it is your job to find said snail, place it on my desk, and smash it with a hammer. While acknowledging that this method may place us in the wrong at any given moment (i.e. Even though burden of proof rest with snail-worshippers, and they fail to produce a 5 million year old gastropoda, there may still be one in existance), we as mere incomprehensible humans will find it near immpossible to function under the opposite assumption.

The concept of faith to accompany this absence of evidence, is also fraudulent. Incidentally, there is no such thing as pure faith (a belief based on complete absence of evidence). A belief that has no cause is random (while the argument can be made that nothnig is truly random), and a beleif that is based upon a cause is... umm... caused... And that cause is subsequently interpreted as "proof."

Nancy beleives that red lipstick will give you herpes because her mother told her so; Fatima beleives that red lipstick will give you herpes because she sucked dick on a guy while wearing red lipstick; Ingrid believes that red lipstick will give you herpes because she put a sample under a microscope and found a HS strand on a brand from a company who hires hookers for dayjobs.

In this case, the only difference in a theist and an atheist is that the latter requires more proof. So where do you draw the line, God? How does one decide which idiot dies and which idiot keep on being an idiot?

There is no reason to believe in God other than the absence of evidence. These holes with we fill with God have time and again proven to be due to a lack of knowledge. Once knowledge is gained, "supernatural" events are easily chopped up to scientifically measurable actions. It might be prudent view the deity as a universal force and call it "God" because you don't want to piss off the emotional humanoid God if he exists... But middleground is so just not noble of the mind.