Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[downbeatplumb]

How convenient, huh?
The same guy who, allegedly, talked to Abraham, wrote stone tablets, brought a great flood upon the whole world, made a woman pregnant, gave sight back to some people, cured lepers, revived people.... yet... "can't be physically detected"?

I smell a rat...

You could detect a miracle sure but there would be no way to know it was God, midicholrians/the Force, a member of the Q Continuum from Star Trek or Satan playing a prank. So that still wouldn't prove Gods existence. As to whether miracles or strange unexplained things happen, things that would go beyond our conventional understanding I'd say there is quite a lot of material to suggest they do happen. I don't mean just "the Bible" but in general.

If you can't prove something exists then it probably dosen't.

It's just your own opinion there's no logic to it. We can't prove a lot of things exist currently like say life on other worlds. I'd suggest there most likely is.

This is just a rather unsubtle way of trying to justify believing in something that can't be true.

Can't be true in your own opinion isn't the same thing as can't be true in general. Unless you have some kind logic or reasoning to back yourself up with but you don't seem to have any. Can we just say you have a belief?

You said that what you believe cannot be proved.
Anything that exists can be tested and proved to exist.
No exceptions.
If you can't possibly prove its existence then it does not exist.