I'm not sure why the general assumption seems to be that atheists (or rationalists, materialists, whatever) have the burden of proof. It's ridiculous to get into an argument over whether or not Josh has an invisible friend.

"Go on! Prove I don't have an invisible friend! You can't, can you?"

"Uh, no, you're right ... I can't."

Here's my proposition: Let's find a shorthand version of the common arguments used by Josh and others. This will save Sapient the four hours moderating, and Kelly from having to respond at such length to gibberish.

1. Burden of Proof - see above.
2. Ad hominem - completely covered. I've even read Sapient refer to it as "ad hom", which inspired this list. There's really no point in getting baited into that kind of thing (Cf. that creepy post Jacob Stein left about Kelly's breasts ... creepy). That's just "ad hom".
3. Qualification Side Step - this is a form of "ad hom" wherein an argument can be ignored simply because of its source. It's a side-step because it doesn't address the actual argument.
4. Epistemological Masturbation - "but we can't know what we don't know that we know we don't know ..." stop it. You still haven't proven with evidence that your invisible friend is somehow real.
5. Logical Jump - So many examples. I like "The Smiths" one, or the guy who argued that a Coke can is manufactured, therefore the only explanation for humans is that we are manufactured. Wow. Still haven't given me evidence for your invisible friend.
6. Specific Invisible Friend - Not Thor, not Amon Ra, not Jimmy the Invisible Squirrel, but Yaweh is who we're talking about. Okay. It's just that He's Invisible.
7. Invisible Mind - your invisible friend has an opinion, and you know what it is. You don't actually hear this opinion directly from your invisible friend, you "just know".
8. Nicholas Nickleby - Your invisible friend appears as a character in a book, and it's the proof that your invisible friend exists. That's equivalent to stating that Nicholas Nickleby is a character in a book, therefore Nicholas Nickleby exists.
9. Multiplicity - That there is a creator AND an intervener AND a forgiver, etc. and they're all the same. Why? Couldn't one invisible friend get the process going for additional invisible friends? Since they're invisible, would you even know which one was NOT talking to you? (It boggles the mind, it really does.)
10. Mystery = Invisible Friend - anything we don't know is the domain of my invisible friend. K. That's just wacky.
11. Petulant Omnipotence - This one's my favourite: my invisible friend is omnipotent, but needs mortal worship or sacrifice or he'll get pissy. An invisible friend that transcends time and is all-powerful already has everything he wants. He's all powerful! You can't actually want anything when you're all powerful and transcend time, because there's no time between when you want something and when you get it. An all-powerful invisible friend is already completely satisfied. He, by definition, cannot have desire OR be pissed off that you aren't grovelling.

I'm sure that's not complete, and that there are real names for the fallacies I bring up, but I don't know them, so any help would be appreciated. It's my honest hope that these could be used to save time, considering the burden of proof really can't be on us, and people are actually making political decisions based on their invisible friends.