Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof.

Had they met their burden, we wouldn't be here.

That doesn't seem true. It assumes without evidence that meeting the burden of proof instantly converts atheists to theists.

Instead, it could very well be that the burden of proof expected of them is inappropriate. Or abnormally high.

Or atheists could just move the goalposts further, arbitrarily increasing the burden.

Oops...

-A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.

How about this? Any position that has nothing to support it is less rational than the opposite position.

You still haven't proven that theism has nothing to support it. That's a pretty bold claim. I imagine the burden of proving it will be pretty high.

I'll save you the time and point out that I don't think you can meet the burden of proof for these claims.

ooops

Oops indeed.

When you stop and think about it, your allegations are unsupported. Heck, the whole burden of proof game is unsupported. The most sensible position is assess each position on it's own merits.