"If a person states that it is their "faith" to believe ABC and does not attempt to pass it off as incontrovertible truth or as factual, then they are being honest and deserve to be treated as such. If, however, as is the case more times than not, they go on to threaten, cajole or coerce others into believing that theirs is the only "true" faith and that everyone else is "wrong", then it's open season for anyone who wants to question them as to why and how they came to that conclusion."

I agree completely.

"There can be no burden of proof upon someone who asks questions, can there?"

No. The burden is on the person questioned to provide proof of their claims. Absolutely. Claims to faith are one thing, convincing others they are true requires more than just a say so. Arguments to ignorance are not good enough.

I'm sure everyone knows what an argument to ignorance is but for anyone who doesn't, it is when someone claims that something is true only because it cannot be proved false, or that something is false only because it cannot be proved true.

It is irrelevant. A claim is supported or refuted by evidence relating to it - not through lack of evidence for a contrary or contradictory claim.

It's probably what bugs me about the more fundie type creationists more than anything else about them. Not just them of course but anyone who uses an argument to ignorance. They just provide the best examples.

They start by saying that because god cannot be proved false, god must be true - argument to ignorance number 1. Then they say that science is false because it cannot be proved to be true - argument to ignorance number 2.

Druid isn't a creationist or even a Christian but it's the same stance - I believe it so it is true, and you have no proof to the contrary. Relating one's experiences is interesting to read, and I'm happy for Druid that he got some positive feeling from it that enriched his life in some small way, but expecting anyone to take them as truisms just like that? Never going to happen.