I’m going to make this very short.
Today I had a conversation with a non-religious man who believed in some vague, nondescript god. At some point in the conversation, the issue of the burden of proof came up. I accepted the burden of proof. Here’s how the conversation went.
Me: “Your position is a god exists. My position is I don’t believe you. Can you demonstrate the validity of your position? Because I can certainly demonstrate the validity of mine.”
The benefit of atheists taking on the burden of proof in this manner is it forces the believer to accept the real definition of atheism. The worst that can happen after that is cognitive dissonance makes a fool of the other person.