Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Esquilax]

What constitutes the criteria of "worthy of worship" in your opinion?

That depends on the person. One of the more interesting things to note, for me, is that I've never met a religious person who feels particularly put out by the religious practices they ascribe to; that is, their god tends to agree with them on every issue, and if there's something in the holy book that would be inconvenient, then it's metaphorical, or taken out of context, but what it never is, is the inconvenient thing that it seems to be.

God belief is multiple choice, which if nothing else shows me that what makes a god worthy of being worshiped depends on the person; I wouldn't worship a homophobic god, some others would. And do, given the thousands of christian denominations out there. We all pick the god that fits the criteria we want to worship, or have been indoctrinated to, in some cases. But you rarely see a person who really loves shellfish not partaking because of his religion.

That's been one of the fuzziest concepts for me. And I for one am glad there's at least one atheist here who is capable of tackling the issue with some degree of seriousness.

The least any of us can do is listen. The "rational" part of being a rational skeptic is ensuring that you're at least exposed to arguments that might disagree with your preconceptions and give them due consideration, regardless of what your eventual conclusions about them might be.

For the record, I think most of the atheists here on the board have done that, at least to some degree. Labeling them all as unserious just puts you at risk of disregarding their positions the same as what you're accusing them of doing.

How do you feel about my conclusion that these issues, namely "What constitutes worthiness of worship?" and "Is the standard of sufficient evidence appropriate?" serve as issues that a rational atheist cannot ignore?

I agree, with two caveats: the first question feels like putting the cart before the horse, and the second is that coming to a different conclusion than yours doesn't mean those questions haven't been considered: whether the answers are right or wrong is a different issue.

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".

Actually, yes: how could a person be rationally justified in accepting an idea before they have been exposed to evidence for it? If one did that, they'd be in the position of accepting every claim out there.

Being correct and being rationally justified in coming to the correct conclusion are different things; if you don't have the latter, you're more lucky than correct.