Most humans aren't too logical when it comes to world views and how to go about it.

[Alan V]

You are shifting the burden of proof. 

If there is a burden proof on me to show my path to be true, then there is burden for people to listen to the proofs and see them as they truly are.  It's not good enough to dismiss what is offered as proofs, rather, one must show they properly understood or if they have not, to dialogue for clarification, but this mocking attitude, is all signs of how Quran has described how people act to the clear proofs when presented.

If there is a burden proof and I have to elaborate, then there should a burden to listen and not only that but a burden to show you are sincerely listening and have understood the arguments and to point which premise is disputable, unclear, or unproven, and simply asserting a premise is doesn't disprove it, so there is need for dialogue.

What Atheists have shown me in these years, they don't take the responsibility to listen to those burdened with proof.

I wanted to avoid repeating my story in this forum, but I guess I'll have to considering your points.

I studied Sufi mysticism from 1975 to 2000, and I studied Islam sympathetically for seven of those years, from approximately 1986 to 1993.  I thought the Sufi/Islamic God-concept was a big improvement over the Christian God-concept.  Like many other religious people, I learned the various arguments supporting both religion and mysticism. 

And after all of that, I abandoned my studies and gave about 100 books to a university library when I fell out with other students over my interpretations of lucid dreaming experiences (which I understood as self-generated rather than psychologically revealing or mystically inspired). 

Then in 2006, my God-concept finally fell apart.  When I turned to atheistic perspectives, I found they answered all of my questions.  One such question was about the burden of proof.  I had been convinced by theists to take it on myself, but on the assurance that real knowledge was forthcoming.  This assurance turned out to just be holding out promises.  No evidential proofs were ever offered.

Because of the many years I invested in such studies, with nothing like a real return on my investments of time and efforts, I side with atheists in saying that non-believers have no burden of proof.  Further, atheists do indeed have answers for all the points typically offered to support theistic concepts.  We disagree that you or any other theists "see them as they truly are."  You should assume most all atheists have already heard such points repeatedly.

Mocking is generally reserved for theists who repeat the same tired points endlessly, without offering evidence and without extending the same sympathetic "burden to listen" to atheists.