What i want to do first is ask a question: Can you explain exactly what you mean by "burden of proof", and why you feel it rests with those who believe in supernatural phenomena and not also with those who do not?

Something like the Sagan quote about "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" combined with Occam's razor. If a naturalistic explanation for life on earth, etc., is sufficient, why do we need to posit a higher being? That, plus most of the philosophical arguments FOR the existence of God tend to bring up as many paradoxes as they solve.