Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The two claims that need to meet the burden the most are:
-Theists haven't met their burden of proof.

If theists had met their burden of proof, I would believe in their god. Since I don't believe in it, they failed to meet their burden of proof. All I ask is that I be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. I still have lots of doubts.

-A theism as a position is more rational because the theists haven't met their burden of proof.

So what would be rational, to believe in everything that anyone ever imagined until you can disprove it, or wait until someone meets their burden of proof before believing a claim? I take it you still believe in Santa Claus because nobody's ever proven without any shadow of doubt that he doesn't and never has existed?

We're treading old ground here.

But if you are being serious, I'd question your measure of what the proper burden of proof amounts to. Is it coherent? How do you know? What does a coherent, appropriate "burden of proof" entail for a particular claim?

All this burden of proof talk comes with some serious burden of proof lol