here, here, and here. The basic thrust of the series' argument was that it is not enough to make the blanket assertion that God does not exist, but rather that there is a burden of proof on every worldview - including atheism - to justify itself via evidence that is philosophical, empirical, or historical/legal in nature.
I think an excellent example of this in action is the recent debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Klemens Kappel on the topic of "Does God exist?" Craig, of course, took the pro position and Kappel the negative stance.
As I finished listening to the debate at the gym today, I just couldn't get over how Kappel was not only incapable of offering solid arguments against Craig's evidence for God, but also completely unable to present any positive evidence for atheism. As Craig brought up a number of times, just saying "We know God does not exist" (which was the statement Kappel made at the outset of the debate) doesn't make it so. Instead, you must provide arguments and evidence for why a stance of atheism is rational and reasonable to hold.
I encourage you do download the debate onto your iPod or other MP3 player and see how an accomplished philosopher and atheist was simply not able meet the burden of proof for his worldview. I find it very telling.