"Can you prove "God does not exist", Ed??? I mean, you are the one who has made the statement... Seems that the burden of proof falls on you, pal..."

Sorry, Bobert, but no-one can prove a negative. The "burden of proof" still lies with the theist. I suppose, strictly speaking, he should start with the 'null hypothesis' (ie. there is no God) and then consider the evidence (if there is any) to the contrary.

If, on the other hand, the theist maintains that he relies on 'faith', and needs no proof, then he cannot demand any sort of proof from the atheist and there are no grounds for discussion. Nevertheless, if the theist resorts to these tactics he cannot demand that the atheist either share or respect his 'faith'.
I suppose this explains why some theists have used, and are still using, violence, or the threat of it, to get their own way.