Followers can't prove the existence of God.
Disbelievers can't prove the absence thereof.

Religion is circles and I don't like f..king circles.

__________________

I think that succinct and admirable statement is the end of this discussion/debate. No-one can disagree with that.

Preach On! Preach On!

It's their job to prove their claim. We don't have to disprove what they claim because we're not claiming anything.

__________________

No, it isn't.

Actually, the burden of proof has always been a topic of debate as well.

__________________

Why would atheists have to disprove a claim they didn't make? Which is impossible anyway because God is not tangible.

__________________

It is if they want to tell anyone else what to think.

__________________
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

Thanks to Shystie for avatar

Yep.

But to simply believe in something does not require you to provide evidence for said belief

Right, that's where ignorance (see: faith) comes into play.

The religious cannot prove their belief. This is fact.

Atheism's belief system is rooted in their disbelief of God. And no, this is not the reciprocate of belief, being disbelief. Agnosticism would require no belief system, being the "religion" neither claiming or denying the existence of God. Atheism, however, claims the non-existence of Christ, and therefore, requires adequate proof to make such claim.

__________________

So, describing their relationship with the Universe as they see it is ignorance?
Nor do they need to
Atheism claims the non-existence of christ? I don't know what kind of definition you're using dude, but that's not what Atheism is.

Atheism in general is just not believing in God. It does not require you to believe in the non-existence of the Supernatural