The assertion that God exists is no different than an assertion that one doesn't
I couldn't disagree more strongly! This argument has been had so many times, I just can't be arsed to go over it again.
Nicolaou, in the specific context of whether it can be proven one way or the other, and despensing with the framework of the scientific method which would require proof of claims beyond singular, individual evidence, Para's comment is right on target.
Scientifically minded folks who don't want to believe in God say: "(1) The burden of proof rests on those making a claim. (2) You cannot prove a negative. (3) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We scientifically minded folks have made these rules and declared them correct. Therefore, based solely on these correct rules we have made, our claim that God doesn't exist, in the absence of contrary proof, is more correct than you religionists claiming that God does exist until proven otherwise."
Believers view even the premise quite differently, and insist that they have no need to prove the existence of a God beyond proving it to themselves. Personal experience is a type of evidence currently off-limits to objective sciences.
Both sides have proselytizers to their camp; the "outspoken atheists" would fit that category, as well, proselytizers seeking converts to the side of "reason" that they interpret to mean "agreement with our correct rules, within which paradigm God cannot possibly exist until scientifically proven otherwise". Anyone who doesn't agree with the correct rules is unreasonable.
I emphasize that side's perspective when writing to you for obvious reasons.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul