Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Esquilax]

Actually, the discussion is more like this:

Scientist A: "I have discovered the newest element Blargoxium!"
Scientist B: "You have provided insufficient proof of your discovery! I do not believe Blargoxium exists!"
Scientist A: "What is sufficient proof?"
Scientist B: "No idea! Whatever proof you bring, is insufficient!"

Well, if that's the way you want to look at it, then fine. I can't speak for everyone else, but my barrier of entry for god-belief is no higher than it is for any other existential claim; if you can show it to me, I'll acknowledge it's there. And you should ask yourself why, instead of just doing that, theists resort to cheap philosophical tricks or defining their god into existence by talking around the fact that they don't have the kind of evidence that they would have for any other thing that exists.

Besides, if we really were just avid contrarians who would never accept any evidence you had, wouldn't it be easy for you to just ruin our credibility completely? If your evidence was as airtight and compelling as you seem to think it is, you could make atheism look as ridiculous as geocentrism or a flat earth, just by presenting it. You could make all other religions look like that, and you need to consider why it is that this isn't so.

But as it stands, I'm completely tired of you guys, lacking the wherewithal to properly defend your position, resorting to the cheap tricks of reinterpreting the motivations of your detractors, smearing the personalities of your opposition rather than just proving your position correct, or trying to shift the burden of proof. As your initial argument posits, we'd all have a burden of proof, identical to the one you claim atheism has... but in the end all you've really done is mislabeled the idea of supporting your position as a burden of proof.

Not having been presented sufficient evidence of the existence of god is the reason I think atheism is more rational. Bam. Your burden of proof has been met. That's what you get for formulating a subjective, qualitative burden of proof for atheism, while retaining the existential and therefore objective burden for your own claims. Congratulations; when will you be shouldering your burden?