Regarding arguments over God (in general)

I've been seeing a really common pattern in the SFA forum. Without definitive evidence from either side on whether God exists, it then migrates to whether believing in God is wrong or right. What happens next:

Atheists: Bring up war, discrimination and then posit that the burden of proof is on those who want to cause these misgivings.

Non-Atheists: Bring up they "feel it" or "just know", and thus appear to have a weaker argument. Not once have I seen anyone bring up the charitable organizations (many if not MOST of which are religiously based) and supplement that to the argument.

After that, it may become something about God verse science. Some would argue that science disproves God, and then others would argue that God made science the way it is. Not circular logic, but a circular argument...In the end, the argument shifts to irrelevance, and Shredderbeam will ask "Empirical evidence please". When asked for the counterargument, the "burden of proof is on you" argument is supplied.

Well, it doesn't matter where the burden of proof comes from. Because the proof doesn't exist.

/end rant