Once you stop trying to persuade atheists, life gets to be so much easier. That isn't to say there aren't those open minded enough, there are and I've talked with a few, but the vast majority don't want to be bothered by it.
Well, maybe. The burden of proof is on those who assert a positive. For example, those who assert that there is a solely natural world that came into existence by itself.
Another example, those who state that there is only that verifiably existant which I can see. That would mean that the earth is populated by some 20,000 people at best.
The burden of proof is upon those who state that we exist. No one can prove it. No one. We could be the figment of someone's cosmic mind. We can prove that there is existence. "I think, therefore I am" does not cut it. Rocks exist, they are and do not think. But then again, my "thinking" is perhaps merely an imposition of someone else's mind. Therefore, EXISTENCE. exists. The best we can do is "I think, therefore SOMETHING exists, and more than that which thinks because it is perceptible." Where did perception come from? One could argue "me," but then again could also be imposed. Did I create perception? You may disagree at this claim. But the best you can do is to claim that you created perception, in which case, that burden is on YOU (generally speaking, not to the post).
I cannot prove to you that I exist. I can prove that someone stated that there is a spaghetti monster, or so you perceive.
The spaghetti monster creates pasta, or a general Being creates existence and things which can make pasta. Which is more probable?