Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

What constitutes sufficient evidence?

If God came down to Earth and cured cancer or something and then gave us a pep talk I would believe a god exists. Something like that.

I don't believe mermaids actually exist, other than as fictional characters.

So according to your reasoning you have the burden of proof to support your disbelief.

I noticed in the other thread you were confused about my position on BoP. If you read my starting post, you will see that I simply take a BoP to mean I can't just make unsupported claims. Claiming I don't believe in mermaids entails my disbelief in the existence of mermaids thus must be supported by reason and evidence.

That means, that if I don't believe in the existence of mermaids, it must be a rational belief. If I claim there is a lack of evidence, then that claim must be rational as well. I know I'm not being very clear with my language here, so if you have any questions, go ahead and ask.

You also gave a criteria for sufficient evidence:

"If God came down to Earth and cured cancer or something and then gave us a pep talk I would believe a god exists. Something like that."

Is that the minimally sufficient evidence? What say God came down to earth and didn't cure cancer but decided instead to perform some other miracle, like cure everybody of the common cold? That would still be sufficient, right?

But would it be minimally sufficient? I assume by your belief in burden of proof, your claim is God hasn't met the minimal burden of proof.