Burden of Proof

Does God exist? An atheist's answer, by definition, must always be "no". When asked for proof of this claim an atheist will almost always say that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist, thus they are able to negate this proposition without proof. In the words of Jacob Fortin: "Extraordinary claims presented without proof may be dismissed without proof."

But what is extra-ordinary? What is ordinary? Theists will often argue that everyone has a spiritual capacity and that religion has been around for thousands of years thus it is the norm, ergo the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Atheists will often counter by saying that a few thousands years is very little time relative to the millions of years that humans have been around.

I think of Nietzsche's quote from The Twilight of the Idols where he says that "The apparent world is the only world, everything else has been lyingly added." This could be used as a rallying cry for atheists around the world, but it is really nothing more than an assertion, just as saying that religion is natural is really nothing more than an assertion.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is with whom does the burden of proof lie, the atheist or the theist? The phrase 'burden of proof' comes from the latin phrase 'semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit' (the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges). But in this case when one demands a burden of proof from whom they believe is making charges they are subsequently implicitly making a charge for what is ordinary. When an atheist charges a theist with the burden of proof they implicitly assert that God is not natural, when a theist charges an atheist with the burden of proof they implicitly assert that God is natural.

What is ordinary? It is a question that both sides must begin to examine in further detail if they is ever to be a resolution to this quarrel. So long as atheism presents itself as nothing more than a negation of theism (as many blogs have done, see: here, here) it will never be able to progress. Instead we ought to progress the idea of 'the norm' as something entirely separate from theism and God.