Atheists are always saying "the believer has the burden of proof, religion is evil prove its not." I was in a debate the other day on Tweb where the atheist said "what makes Jesus God?" I gave some arguments which he couldn't answer so they began to say "but first you have to prove he existed, and you can't do that." Sot he whole debate became a totally new topic all because he could not answer hte first one. When I objected to that tactic he says "you know nothing about logic." Then he spends the rest of the thread going "Metacrock doesn't know anything about logic he has the burden to proof to show that Jesus existed." But in reality I don't. Jesus is assumed to be a historical fact by historians the myther has the burden to prove that there's a reason to doubt it. But this atheist I was arguing with worms his way around that by saying "its impossible to prove the negative. Therefore it's unfair to ask me to prove the negative." Thus because he can't prove the negative he gets totally shift to another top or bring up his handy dandy fundie stopper fail safe (myther thesis) because he can't answer my arguments? No that's obvious a crock.
The assertion that Jesus did not exist is asking us to obliterate history as we know it. Jesus is a historical fact. To assume he was not requires a change of the status quoe, that that gives the myther the burden. Now it's true they can't prove Jesus didn't exist and that would be proving a negative but they do have a burden. They must show that there is a reason to think he didn't exist. That would be esay if he didn't exist because then the Talmudists who wrote about him would say "he's a myth, hhe didn't exist" instead of making up a bogus history. Since we have wrintings by people who met his friends and by the communities who saw him and heard him the Jesus myth hpothesis cannot trade off of shifting the burden to proof.
as Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers says:
Let me give a more concrete example: Why should the claim "I have a brother" be held to a higher standard of proof than the claim "I do not have a brother"? Surely, if I make either claim I should have a reason for it. But isn’t the memory that I did grow up with a brother on the same footing evidentially as the memory that I did not grow up with one? Wouldn’t the fact that a brother is listed in the birth records for my family be on the same level as the fact that one is not listed in them? Why should a claim of existence require more evidence than a claim of nonexistence?
The evidence used to argue the existence or nonexistence of a brother is the same: my own memory, the testimony of relatives and family friends, what is recorded in birth and medical records. What this evidence says should settle the matter. I don’t have to produce any extra evidence to argue that a brother exists than to argue that one does not.