Its nice and easy to sit there and say that because there is no way to know either way it is impossible to make a definitive statement about the existence of god. Except for the fact that that is nonsense. If I say that I have a baseball in my left hand right now, there is no way anyone can tell, because there is no one in this room I'm in right now. You have no way of knowing. Granted. [b]But[/b] you are under no obligation to believe that I have baseball in my left hand, nor act as though such is the case, unless I provide proof. I am the one making the claim. Therefore, the burden of proof is on me, and effectively, in the minds of everyone else (or at least, people who like proof), I'm not holding a baseball in my left hand.

The 'God' and 'Not-God' propositions are not two sides of the same coin, propositions that can be equally proven. First of all, it is impossible to prove a negative. You cannot prove that something does not exist, because it would have left no indication of its existence (since it didn't exist). Things that do not exist cannot provide data. Proving a negative is impossible. All that can be done in support of the negative proposition is to disproven given evidence that is in support of the positive proposition. The burden of proof is not on the atheist. The burden of proof is on the theist, the person making the claim. If the positive claim (God exists) has insufficient evidence to establish it, then we can actually say that God doesn't exist - because there is yet no proof for his existence.