Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

But what I'm really interested in is your denial of (b). Would you say that it's okay to be an atheist while simultaneously holding that one's own atheism is irrational?

No. I'll outright say I think theism is irrational, while atheism rational. I'm not claiming that all forms of theism are incorrect. I'm saying I believe they are on the basis that I've never been presented supporting evidence to back their claims.

Okay, so you affirm my statement of (b), that an atheist must also affirm that "atheism is more rational than theism", or at minimum, "atheism is rational."

Why in the world would you say (b) is not required to be an atheist then?

Are you going by the "It's Vinny, so I can't agree with anything he says" criterion?

But besides that, your reasoning is interesting.

You're saying atheism is rational and theism is irrational because no evidence has been presented for theism?

How does that reasoning work, for, say quantum mechanics? "Prior to sixth grade, I saw no evidence for quantum mechanics. So quantum mechanics became rational in the sixth grade".

I think you're defining rationality/irrationality subjectively, as in "Theism is irrational to me, atheism is rational to me". But by definition, subjective definitions are independent of reality. So in reality, theism could be rational while atheism is irrational.