Unfortunately, there is no practical difference between being neutral or hard-over against God. Neither position changes how you will live this life or the next.
That is a "False Dichotomy fallacy". Their is a big difference because I accept the fact that god could exist. it is not black or white.
The burden of proof lies with the person taking the risk that there are no consequences, not with the person warning about them.
That is a "Burden of Proof Reversal fallacy".
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claims. I have not made any claims so I do not hold the burden. The only people that hold the burden of proof in this situation are the people saying there is or isn't a god.
That is why I'm natural. When I am given factual evidence based in logic and reason I might take a side but until then I can not (I am not saying I will never receive evidence to prove one way or another I just have not received it yet.).
8D
What you have just used is the "Make up a phrase containing the word fallacy to prove fallacy fallacy." :)
This is not a debate game where being neutral gets you out of responsibility for your own fate. I can tell you not to go walking across the Serengeti unarmed because of the predators there and my obligation to you is over. I may or may not offer you some degree of proof. You must then do your own homework to decide how to weigh the evidence for or against my assertion - or remain neutral and set out unarmed anyway. Either way, I assume no obligation to prove the danger to your satisfaction.
Regardless of how much proof I am able to show you of my position, you have zero proof of the opposite. So all you can do is complain that I have not given you enough. If that is satisfactory for you to go on a barefoot safari across Africa, be my guest.
Saying "I accept the fact that predators could exist" is not much of a defense when you inevitably encounter one.