The Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is defined as: 

When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition. While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.

The idea of the Burden of Proof comes up a lot in religious debates. Basically, it says that the burden lies on the person making the claim (i.e. I believe God exists) to show the evidence and proof for a claim. The person denying the claim (i.e. I don't believe in God) has no burden of proof (and anyway, you can't prove a negative in the first place, so the statement, 'You can't prove God doesn't exist,' is a fallacious statement).

If I say, "The Book of Mormon is Scripture and came through revelation," the Burden of Proof is on me to prove this claim, not for the other person to prove the negation. I know that it is impossible to prove a negative, so when believers say, "You can't prove there is no God," that statement is meaningless, because no one can prove a negation.

But, there are some times when the non-believer (Atheists, Agnostics, Rationalists, Neo-Atheists, Free Thinkers, Humanists, and Those-who-don't-like-labels-and-so are-labeled-as-such...whatever you refer to yourself as) seems to have the Burden of Proof just as the believer has. 

When I say, "The Book of Mormon is Scripture," and the non-believer says "No, the Book of Mormon is not true and not Scripture," the Burden of Proof is on me, because I am making the claim and the non-believer is just denying my claim.

However, when the non-believer makes the claim that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, that statement should also have the Burden of Proof. If I say, "The Book of Mormon is Scripture," and the non-believer says, "No, the Book of Mormon is a fake and a fraud," isn't the Burden of Proof on both of us to show and prove our claims? 

In an older post on a Facebook religious debate group (I frequent them when I am in my office), I asked "When you all see the Bible, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and the Book of Mormon, how would you describe it? What do you think it is?"

One guy quickly figured out quickly that I had an alternative reason for asking this question than pure curiosity. He was right. I wanted to know people's opinions first, because I made this post.

I got many various answers, like:

Morgan ****:  "A fairly boring contradictory fairy tale used to try to coerce people into acting a certain way. Personally I like my fiction to be more consistent thematically"

Craig *******:  "I think that the bible was a bunch of misunderstood stories created by people who didn't understand nature. All the mormon stuff is an obvious attempt at fraud, that only the super naive would fall for."

Kurt ******* ******:  "Bunk!"

John *****:  "The Book of Mormon is the same exact thing the Bible is, a collection of stories, by guy claiming to be inspired, writing on behalf of imaginary inspired people, about a bunch of imaginary stories, and misunderstood history."

Mike ****** ******:  "Myths, fairy tales. Humanity grasping at straws, trying to explain why things like earthquakes and lightning happen without science and coming up with magical explanations of the universe. In the case of the D&C, and smith's other writings I see it as narcissism distilled into print."

Nathan ********:  "Those books are "entertainment" and "guidebooks" for people that don't like thinking for themselves. Old school snake oil "self-help" books that con artists use to dupe rubes and the young out of their money and time, etc."

  

Now, my question is: Wouldn't all these people have the Burden of Proof to show and prove their ideas and opinions just as much as I would have the Burden of Proof to show and prove that the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible are all Scripture? Don't we both have the Burden of Proof? None of these people have to prove a negation.

For instance, "All the mormon stuff is an obvious attempt at fraud." Wouldn't Craig have the Burden of Proof to show that (at least) Joseph Smith was committing a fraud and intentionally fooling people with something he knew was fake? But, Craig said, "All the mormon stuff," so I would assume that he has the Burden of Proof to show that the Pearl of Great Price, the D&C, and the Book of Mormon were created, written, and presented by people who knew they were fake, but were presented to the public anyway for some fraudulent purpose?

Even Mike's answer that the Scriptures (some or all, I don't know) were "Myths, fairy tales." That statement is not a negation and put a claim that the Scriptures were myths and fairy tales; written, created, and presented for a certain reason, probably for some lesson.

Even when Jared ******* said the Scriptures (all or some...he wasn't clear) were "Myth wrapped in lies wrapped in horseshit." This would require the Burden of Proof on his part, to show me which parts are myth, which parts are lies, and which parts are horseshit. Or, if every single part of the Scriptures are myths and lies and horseshit, wouldn't this still require the Burden of Proof?

I am not trying to shuck off the Burden of Proof on my part. And, I am not trying to pass the responsibility on to someone else. I am just saying that some cases seem to require both parties (the believer and the non-believer) to present their proof because they would both of the Burden of Proof.

Nathan claimed that "We know they are full of **** from experience and science." Doesn't the Burden of Proof fall on Nathan to show this?