Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[pocaracas]

Had they met their burden, we wouldn't be here.

That doesn't seem true. It assumes without evidence that meeting the burden of proof instantly converts atheists to theists.

Instead, it could very well be that the burden of proof expected of them is inappropriate. Or abnormally high.

Or atheists could just move the goalposts further, arbitrarily increasing the burden.

Oops...

Each atheist has his/her own measure for the proof required to change their minds, true...
But we're not talking about convincing individual persons that there is a god.
That only requires a good con man.
And is hence not a good measure of the applicability of that proof.

We're talking about showing beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a god.
Kind of like gravity... Is there anyone who denies that gravity exists?

How about this? Any position that has nothing to support it is less rational than the opposite position.

You still haven't proven that theism has nothing to support it. That's a pretty bold claim. I imagine the burden of proving it will be pretty high.

Oh?
What does theism have to support it, then?
Besides lots of wishful thinking?
Do tell, I'm open minded on this...

ooops

Oops indeed.

When you stop and think about it, your allegations are unsupported. Heck, the whole burden of proof game is unsupported. The most sensible position is assess each position on it's own merits.

Assess each position on its own merits?...

• Shamanism - A human representative of the afterlife capable of contacting the "other side", the spirit world. The spirits of the dead, the spirits of the trees, the land, etc...
  
• Celts - in tune with their surroundings; could read signs from plants, or animals and ascertain future events... or so they claimed.
  
• Ancient Egyptians - Myriad gods, half human, half animal... some representing "forces of Nature", such as the sun or the moon. A very human pharaoh would be the divine representative on Earth and had to be considered a god himself.
  
• Ancient Greeks - Myriad gods, very very anthropomorphized, each representing something from Nature, or human nature, such as the Sea, Love, Thunder...
  
• Vikings - Myriad gods, similar to the greeks, but more warlike.
  
• Hindus - Myriad gods, similar to the Egyptians, but less anthropomorphized. No human representative posing as a god.
  
• Mesopotamics - Myriad gods, anthropomorphized, with a clear hierarchy, with the 3 main on top. One of those was the father god.
  
• Judaism - One single god, the father god.
  
• Christianism - Like judaism, but with a human representative that is claimed to be a god himself.
  
• Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god.
  
• MANY MORE!!!
  
  
• Atheism - gods do not seem to be around.
  

Now, I look around me...

• gravity works in a predictable manner
  
• volcanoes work in a... not very predictable, but an understood manner
  
• Lightning works in an understood manner
  
• Earthquakes work in an understood manner
  
• Projectiles work in a predictable manner
  
• physics works in a predictable manner
  
• chemistry works in a predictable manner
  
• Life seems to work in a predictable manner
  
• no gods are required
  
• no gods have been measured
  

None of these religions, except atheism, fits the bill of the observed world.