In a recent forum debate with a Christian, the subject of the "burden of proof" was raised and the frustrated Christian was complaining that it seems "unfair" that Christians should bear that burden simply because they're making the claim. Don't atheists bear a burden of proof? Shouldn't they have to disprove God? Don't "both sides" bear the burden of proof?
While he eventually agreed with my explanation, he was still unwilling (unable may be more accurate) to provide any evidence to support his claim. He then made an accusation intended to impugn my character...which backfired. Trying to get back to the burden of proof issue, I asked him to provide evidence or argument to support the Christian fantasy.
Realizing that I had just made my own claim/accusation, I thought I'd give him an example of how one actually defends a position. Enough people enjoyed the following that I thought I'd post it here, as well. Without further ado, my defense of the position that Christian religious beliefs are fantasy...
Fantasy: an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters.
Any story with unicorns would be considered fantasy. Does one need to prove that unicorns don't exist in order to relegate them to the realm of imaginative or fanciful? Of course not. Stories containing unicorns are fantasy until unicorns are demonstrated to exist.
The same is true for stories with magic (supernatural, not prestidigitation). Do we have to prove that magical spells that allow one to become invisible or fly don't work in reality? Of course not. Stories with supernatural magic are fantasy until such time as supernatural magic is demonstrated to exist.
Does a story have to be entirely imaginative or fanciful to qualify as fantasy? Of course not. Portions of the Harry Potter books take place in England, a real place, and involve many mundane items and characters we witness in daily life (beds, fireplaces, castles, etc.) Thus, the reality of some portion of a story has no bearing on whether the story is classified as fantasy. (The common examples is that Spider-Man lives in New York and the reality of that place infuses the story with a "sense" of reality, but those elements don't take Spider-Man out of the "fantasy" realm.)
Does a story have to be predominantly fanciful to qualify as fantasy? No. If someone were to write a book (and I'll bet someone has) that had an ordinary schoolgirl in the real world, who had a unicorn as a pet - the book would be on the fantasy shelves even if everything except the unicorn were mundane. Thus, any story which contains a single fantasy element could be fairly classified as a fantasy.
Do religious stories, which certainly include fanciful, supernatural elements typically get exempted from the fantasy category? Yes....but only by the implied fiat of believers. We are trained to generally afford religion a "hands off"/"special category" respect that it simply hasn't earned.
The Ancient Greek gods are now considered fantasy and mythology, because almost no one considers them to be real. Stories of druidic magic are considered fantasy by anyone who doesn't believe in druidic magic.
As no supernatural claim has ever been proven true (and anyone who can do so will earn a quick $1M - oh, and they'll completely change the world we live in, more than any person in history), those who believe in the Christian religious stories are no different from those who believe the Hindu religious stories, the American Indian religious stories, the ancient Greek/Celt/Roman/Norse religious stories...or those who believe druidic magic is real.
The Christian religious stories contain supernatural elements that would be described as magic by any non-believer (creation, parting of a sea, virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, water to wine, multiplication of food). The fact that believers prefer to label them miracles is largely irrelevant, as religious miracles are supernatural.
This alone supports the idea that Christian religious stories can be classified as fantasy. Add in giants and other fanciful creatures, and the claim is strongly supported.
Just as we don't have to disprove unicorns and "Expelliarmus", we don't have to disprove the claims of the Bible. Until they can be demonstrated to be true, they fall in the same category....