I've written a small book on theism.

Not really, but I have effectively done this. I've been in a debate with someone. We, that is, the OP and subsequent posters were talking about a specific aspect of theism, when some one came and claimed that none of it is important because religion makes you dumb and god does'nt exist anyway.
Of course, we all, theists and nontheists alike asked him to prove his claims. He responded by saying, among other things, that there's no evidence for gods, so none of them exist. We pointed out that this was Ad Ignorantium. He then claimed that It was our responsibility to prove him wrong.
When pointed out that this was shifting the Burden of Proof, he claimed that the responsibility to prove a claim is on the person who makes the claim that is hard to beleive. When pointed out by us that credibility is non-contingent when establishing the burden of proof, he repeated that claim along with the claim that he does'nt have to prove his claim because we are the ones making a claim. How, when thus far we have'nt? He said by denying his claim, we were accepting the converse (ie, that gods do exist), and as we were making the positive claim, we had to prove it. He claims that no one ever has to prove negative claims.
When pointed out that the burden of proof rests on the person who makes the existential claim, regardless of positivity or negativity, he claimed that no one can ever prove a negative existential claim in any circumstance whatsoever, so he does'nt have to prove his claim. When we objected, he claimed that the existence of any god, specifically the Christian God is improbable.He concludes that if it is improbable for something to have happened or existed according to known evidence, then it follows that that thing or occurrence absolutely does not exist.

Now, I make no secret of my sick happiness in pnwing noobs and other illogical people. So you can imagine that I've been having a field day with this guy. Wait- apparently he now has an accomplice.
His accomplice and I have come to an agreement! Progress has been made!
Is this the end of an seven page debate on where the burden of proof lies?
Goodness, I've been taught that there can be confusion on where the burden of proof lies in debates, but this is ridiculous.
See, I'm so completely boring, that I've actually devoted my life to find out all of this unimportant stuff because I find a sick joy in proving people wrong. *Laughs maniacally*
Read the entire ongoing debate HERE. As always, yours truly is the Effervescent Wumbo Ragamuffin.

ED/M&R Is your real friend.