Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Rahul]

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it. But the idea you might be referring to is Zeno's paradox. And I won't lie, it mystifies me too.

But you asked me about the conception of God because, IIRC we were discussing a minimally sufficient criteria of evidence in order to justify belief in said deity.

Still awaiting a definition. That's step numero uno.