Why do Atheists assume the burden of proof is on theists?

Burden of proof is being misused. Generally burden of proof is a legal term. You would have an independent judge to determine who bears the burden of proof and what evidence is acceptable.

You would also have an independent jury to determine if the burden has been met. We have neither. When applied to debate, however, both sides usually come with a stance that contains positive claims and both sides are to bring evidence.

One may say they hold a burden of proof, but that burden is most closely represented by preponderance of the evidence. In this case, it is simply that the evidence of one side is more convincing, than that of the opposing side. Clearly in the case of debate, both sides would equally bear any burden.

Conversion become trickier. If I am trying to convince someone of anything, then I bear the entirety of the burden to given whatever amount of evidence which is required to convince that person. That person may reject or accept any evidence given for any reason they choose.

I would generally think that discussion here would fall under debate, thus I would say that both sides bear the burden of proof to the poitn of preponderance of the evidence. I think many atheists approach the debate incorrectly. Imagine going to the Pepsi challenge with an empty cup.

This means that you are here to test, and partake, but not challenge. Only if you bring a cup filled with liquid are you coming to debate. Claiming a simple lack of belief is inherently coming to the challenge with an empty cup, and thus one should not act as if they have entered the debate.

Coming with Humanism or M-theory, or something else, you can enter the debate, but must be prepared to defend your own views. Positive and negative claims are meaningless nonsense that people are claiming makes a difference. We frequently work toward evidence of the negative.

You take a drug test that find no drugs in your system, is used as evidence of a negative. This "you can't prove a negative" is just a thing people say. It is meaningless.

You can't prove anything outside of math. You can only show compelling evidence. In fact, I have yet to see one atheist win a debate EVER.

Why? Because lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking. Even if they were to disprove the god of every religion ever thought of by man, they have done nothing to show themselves correct.

They are coming to the Pepsi challenge with an empty cup and saying all of the drinks suck. This, in no way makes their view (or their drink for the sake of the analogy) superior. Bastion.

Are you aware that Niels Bohr said that everything we think of as real is made of that which cannot be considered real? My suggestion is that perhaps Materialists are grasping at this concept of the "real" that does not truly exist.

I wouldn't claim that the natural world is all that exists. However, given that everything we know about reality comes to us through our sensory organs, and those work through natural processes, it's clear that, if there is something beyond our ability to perceive, it is something that we would have no way of knowing about. Furthermore, the question is what it means to be natural, as opposed to not-natural.

If we're talking about the supernatural, we're talking about forces that supervene on the laws of nature. I see a stark problem with this. Let me try to explain it simply.

Things are what they are; that is, they have a specific nature that determines how they act within certain contexts. To put it another way, each individual thing has an identity. A corollary of this is that, given a certain set of circumstances, there is only one action which an entity can take.

In other words, causality is a consequence of identity. For example, if I knock my pen (which has a specific identity) off my desk, it will always fall to the floor (effect), because that's what happens when my pen is unsupported this close to the surface of the planet (context). If it does anything else (different effect), either it isn't really my pen (different identity), or it is not unsupported that close to the surface of the planet (different context).

A supernatural force would circumvent rules like this. Perhaps it could make the pen float by supervening on the laws of gravity. Given the number of times in a day that I find myself picking up my pen from the floor, it seems that: (1) I need to invest in a pen cup, and (2) the natural world is all that we experience.

To support a supernatural world, it would be up to the person to support that one exists, beyond our percepts. Something that makes things act contrary to their nature. And, given the universality of things acting like what they are in our experience, that's a pretty tall order.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.