Oh dear. You are trying on that tact. Your first statement is completely worthless as an intellectual statement as it is simply a wild irrational allegation intended to discredit. It can be applied to anyone or any argument and is designed to discredit not the argument but the entire philosophy of the argument, the basis on which it is made, and the intention with which it is made. A McCarthyite witch hunt no less.
In the philosophical world it is a total playing field. The onus of proof is as much on the theist as it is on the atheist. If you believe otherwise, then you are placing yourself on elevated grounds and simply stating that you have a self evident truth. You are stating an axiom, which is unproven and unprovable but you believe it is more than this.
The burden of proof falls on whoever puts forward a theory. It is this error that reductionists materialists make whereby they introduce higher level concepts as 'self evident' truths one on top of another believing they are constructing a self consistent rational theory. But when viewed under the scrutinizing unforgiving lens of philosophical construct, you can see that all they have succeeded in doing is placing one turtle on top of another all the way down!
I am quite happy to continue this debate with you but I will ask for sincerity and rationality from you. Its not possible to continue a debate such as this unless a dialectic is established. And I do not wish to speak standing on the ground while you stand on your elevated alter of self proclaimed truth.