"If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence. Otherwise I have no reason to listen to you."
Interesting statement. It proposes the existence of an interpretive/evaluative principle which is not defendable using the scientific method. And hence there is no reason to listen to it.
Also, I find it interesting that those who regard themselves as the vanguard of rationality, who trumpet that they have seen through all past "superstitions" and have a brilliant new explanation for everything (as Dennett says, Darwin deserves the prize for having "the best idea that anyone ever had."), then turn around and assert that the burden of proof lies with their presumably irrational inferiors. While proclaiming that they are the intellectual supermen they also claim that they don't have to prove it. In fact, it is up to others (who are presumably irrational and ill-equipped intellectually to do so) to disprove it. All righty then.
And no doubt, the person proclaiming that the burden of proof lies with religion has put in zero time tracking down and carefully considering the very best theistic philosophical arguments and Christian apologetics. Christianity is quite happy to take on the burden of proof, but can't do much with someone who can't be bothered to take an honest look. It seems that until God Himself appears and makes his presence known, the intellectually brave atheist need not lift a finger.
The poster on which these self-refuting sentiments are charmingly stated can be found at the usual den of iniquity (scroll down).