Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[downbeatplumb]

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "I will now find evidence to deny this".

^^ When does this ever happen in reality? Rather, its

Scientist A: "Blargoxium is the newest element, I have discovered it"
Scientist B: "Interesting. What information do you have to support your claim?"

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!"

In order for this to be true someone at some time would have had to bring some evidence for "god" and no one in the history of the world ever has.

All you have are stories in books made up eons ago.

But there is a nugget of truth here.
What would be evidence for god?
First you must give us a proper definition of what god actually is.
All I've seen are anthropomorphism of abstract concepts.
God is love, god is mercy, god is that feeling of relief you get after needing a wee for a long time then finally getting to go. Oh and he hates gays and made the universe by "magic".