Burden of Proof

As atheists we hear it all the time: "You can't prove God doesn't exist." And while that's true, it doesn't shift the burden of proof. Here's an easy way to explain why:

Let's assume Existence is a crime, God is the one accused, and in the courtroom is a skeptic pitted against a believer.
The skeptic's position is that of the Defense: God is presumed innocent of existing until proven otherwise.
The Believer's position is of the Prosecution: God is guilty of existing, and must be proven so.

Because of the difficulty of proving a Negative, God CANNOT be proven innocent of Existence, meaning the skeptic can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Fortunately, however, the skeptic doesn't have to, because the court is impartial, but more importantly because the skeptic is not making that claim, merely challenging The Believer to convince the court that God is indeed guilty of existing.

A skeptic's job is to make sure, as the Believer attempts to convince others that God is guilty of existing, that the evidence is credible, the logic is valid and the methodology is sound.

As a skeptic who values intellectual integrity, meaning I want my beliefs to be true and consistent, I will critically examine every claim made, because it is a moral imperative to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. That is, to ensure that factual claims are actually true.  Thus, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim and in the case of a god(s), that would be the believer.