Recently, I received an email detailing exactly why the author did not believe that the burden of proof argument should be used against belief in god. I disagree strongly. This video makes a good case.
Another good case for why those who assert the existence of god must bear the burden of proof is quite simply that I, for one, do not make a claim that god does not exist. I merely claim that without a single shred of evidence after thousands of years of searching, there is no reason to give any credence to the god hypothesis.
We gave up on the alchemy and phlogiston chemistry hypotheses in far less time. People are already starting to question whether String Hypothesis may be a failed hypothesis. And, strings have a shred of evidence, two in fact. One: the hypothesis predicted the glueball, which is now on the standard list of particles. Two: before attempting to work gravity into the equations, it fell out of them.
Important note: I do not consider either of those pieces of evidence to be enough to prove string hypothesis and probably no one else does either. But, they do give me reason to consider the possibility. No such evidence has been proffered for the existence of any gods, and not for lack of trying. So, I conclude, purely based on a complete lack of evidence, that there are no gods. That said, someone show me some real credible evidence that meets scientific standards and I might become agnostic.
Thus far, no evidence is forthcoming.