Quote - > Quote - Religious people often say that science has the burden of proving that there is no God - no, the religious has the burden of proving that there is a God, heaven, hell, and everything else we cannot see, and all they seem to have are the writings of people who didn't know a whole lot about how things worked back then.

Right, religion predates science.  That's why it's up to science to disprove god.  Before science, religion didn't have need for proof of god.  Only if religion had arrived after science would it need proof of god to base its claims on.

I do hope that I haven't misunderstood you here, so do correct me if I'm wrong about your meaning.

Science is just a methodology. That religion predates science is irrelevant to the burden of proof - that burden is determined by reason and did not require anyone to understand that to be so. It is an extraordinary claim and like any other must pass two hurdles 1) it must be shown to make sense and 2) it must either be supported by empirical evidence or shown to be necessarily true. Reason shows no bias in this, which applies to all such claims, be they in God, cold fusion, or bacteria causing stomach ulcers.