Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Rahul]

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.

Hrm. Trying to think. Off the top of my head I can't even remember insufficient evidence. Only unsupportable statements. Can you provide me with any evidence as an example?

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?

I took a class on it in college. I'm not big on it though. I never found it that interesting. More annoying than anything. But I'll consider philosophical ideas some. But I've read philosophical ideas that apparently support the idea that movement is impossible so it's not something I put a lot of weight on.

Now how to we go about finding the definition for god?