Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

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.

Ah, I see where you are going wrong. Atheists don't make the claim that evidence for god does not exist. At least they shouldn't be. Atheists make the claim that no one has provided them any evidence for god.

I'm claiming that no one has shown me the evidence. Now to review every interaction I've ever had with anyone for my entire life where I may have been presented with evidence is unreasonable.

So therefore, the only rational thing to do, is for a believer to show me the evidence. And then I'll be a believer too.

It should be easy right?

But none of them have been able to do it.

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.

Ok, well let's really break this down. First of all, we have to agree on the definition of what would constitute a god.

Certainly an advanced interstellar alien visiting Earth and curing a disease would not make it god.

So what exactly is a god? Let's be clear on that before we continue.

I suspect you of being a poe. You sound far too reasonable for the status quo around here!

I personally wouldn't say atheists can say that they have not been provided evidence because this suggests no evidence has been provided. Rather they may say they haven't been provided sufficient evidence, which presumes evidence that may be too weak to warrant belief on it's own, but cumulatively with other evidences might make for an interesting case.

You're right about the conception of God, too. I like the philosophical concept of God, as discussed in Philosophy of Religion. Minimally featured. Omniscient, omnipotent, maybe omnibenevolent. Certainly non-physical. Are you familiar with philosophy?