The most important reason anyone is an atheist

[Clueless Morgan]

Here is the most important reason anyone (well most) is a atheist. Our default stance is to disbelief in something until it meet the burden of proof

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

.

Now religion has a heavy burden because of the extraordinary claims made, and the reason we disbelief is because no evidence that is properly verifiable has been offered to to date.
It's not because we are immoral or want to sin or hate god, but many think that so I'd thought I'd clear this up

Now to make one final point, in order to meet the burden of proof (regarding your chosen belief system as a whole) as a theist you must do three things.
1. Proof there is a god.
2. Prove that it is your god and all other gods are fake.
3. Demonstrate that your god is worthy of worship in the prescribed manner.

It looks like you got this definition from the Philosophical Burden of Proof from Wikipedia and I do have one concern about it, or perhaps what I desire is a clarification.

You say that religion has the burden of proof due to the nature of its claims, which I 100% agree with, not because of the nature of its claims, but because its the side making any sort of claim at all. What concerns me about the definition of the burden of proof is the phrase I've underlined:

Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

By this definition, the (predominately Christian/theist) community could fulfill the burden of proof by determining that it is met by faith alone and, due to the above statement in the definition of the burden of proof, they would then be meeting it, correct? After all, the community would be developing this evidential standard, so if the community concludes that faith alone meets the evidential standard than they've completed their task, no?

I'm not saying that this approach is honest, and it is certainly not evidence of anything, but the wikipedia definition you provided seems to allow for this sneaky kind of loophole.

I'm not very well read with regards to philosophy so I could be completely missing the mark here. Could you expound on how this is not the case?