QualiaSoup recently created a great video regarding the burden of proof. I love his point that we don't create encyclopedias full of all of the possible things that have not been disproven, e.g.,
- A psychic werewalrus
- A wizard with milk in his fingertips
- A blind unicorn galloping backwards
- A sentient machine composing anti-music
- A gold hand floating in a crystal cave
However, this is precisely what we have when discussing the unfalsifiable claims of religion. Shouldn't we need more than the ravings of a 7th century bedouin that he met the archangel Gabriel in a cave and flew through the air on a magical winged horse before we devote serious time or energy to discussing them?