The nature of evidence

[The Valkyrie]

No, that's your projection. Think of it in a courtroom situation - the only position held by the attorney for the defence is "the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence against my client to meet the burden of proof". Sure, if Joe Blow didn't do it someone else must have,but that's neither the purview of the defence nor the issue under discussion.

Theists have a burden of proof, since they are the ones with something to prove. Atheists, in matters pertaining to atheism, do not.

I really can't make it any simpler without using crayons.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim.  I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this.  Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.

Reality doesn't work that way.

I stated I don't believe in deities and that I'm an atheist (you may have heard the term "agnostic atheist").  Atheism doesn't make a specific claim that deities don't exist.  It's simply a non belief.

Religionists, however, DO claim, categorically, that their deity exists.  Therefore, burden of proof is on you.