Regardless of whether or not you can prove anything or whether or not you care to prove anything, the "burden of proof" most certainly does lie on you. Why? Because YOU have the outrageous claim. If a group of people comes up claiming they saw a real-life blue genie in an old coca-cola can, the burden of proof is on them to shift what is accepted as "truth". What's more outrageous, that there lives a being that defies the way the world is KNOWN to work, or that the world continues to work in the way it always has and has consistently and reliably proven itself to work? Now, I'm not saying anything about whether or not that person is actually right, I'm just pointing out that there's a pretty reasonable way to assign the "burden of proof". Just to give an example. Some might claim that all those stories in the Old Testament in fact occurred. For instance, Noah's Ark. I know many of you know that there are millions of species just under the heading "insects", and millions under "amphibians", and so on without mentioning all the different types of animals that exist on land. Does anyone in this forum truthfully believe that all the existing species in the present day are descendants from an original pair that one family managed to collect from all over the world, and actually were organized and fit inside a single ship, within a relatively short period of time? I ask, what's more probable, and what's more outrageous? That? ..Or the alternative, which is that the story of Noah (like other stories in the Bible and thousands of other pieces of ancient folklore) was simply a story passed on by word of mouth through generations, and at some point written down by men (Men, by the way, who at the time probably had very limited knowledge about how the world works, and were easily susceptible to finding other (supernatural) explanations to natural things that happened all around them, like a period of severe flooding. When somebody claims to have had an experience that proves to the person something religious or supernatural, I don't call him or her a liar. But I do say that it's the least likely of possible explanations. Hey, I'll even say I had such an experience myself about 6 years ago. But it's so easy to be perplexed and assign religion and the supernatural to what we perceive ..and make him or herself feel better by further feeding our very-human hope for something more. The truth is, much is actually known about the human brain and how our perception works. And there are very real and logical explanations for so many things out there that people claim. As for the real world and its workings.. An everyday thing like an automobile, is among a long list of things that are testament to how predictable, reliable, and how well-understood the rigid, ever-present, laws of thermodynamics are. So all I say is that given: a) A religious claim defying, for instance, thermodynamics b) The real world and how it is known to work. ..I think the burden of proof (be it taken or not) lies in the former. That's exactly right. You said it yourself. The whole reason behind having the word and its definition in the first place is to excuse religions from having to make sense. It is the greatest shield religion made for itself, to protect it against any attack ..even those involving reason, logic, wisdom, and knowledge; and to maintain its followers, especially when they start using their head and realizing certain things. What they often don't realize is that it's not a solid shield ..it's an empty ideal of a shield that protects the religion in much the same way that a scared small child is protected by his invisible impenetrable jacket. A phrase stating "I cannot prove it, but I believe it to be true" should not be followed by a phrase stating "Thus something is .." Oh yeah Thanks, buddy! ..I just wandered in for some reason and got carried away reading through this thread.