Burden of proof is a courtroom. This is a forum of open discussion. Debate the topic instead of insulting the character and mental capacities of the individual so scorned.
Burden of proof is just a way of avoiding an open discussion. If you don't want to be open I could care less. But they expect you to answer questions with accusatory remarks.
At the end of the day, however, what is really the difference you're trying to suggest between the courtroom and open discussion -- in terms of what people believe, and why they should believe otherwise?
I have had many people tell me that I should believe in God, and I've asked all of them, "why?" It's a simple enough question. I've never seen anything that suggested that something "godlike" was busy in the world, so I ask others what they see that I might have missed. And they never, ever, not once come even close to showing something that says "here is evidence of God." Instead, the entreat me to consider such ludicrous notions as Pascal's Wager.
Well, I could do the same thing. I could threaten that "if you don't properly placate Chupacabra, he will come and tear the entrails out of you and your children." So don't you think you should offer whatever it is that Chupacabra wants, just to be on the safe side? Why, or why not?