Why are theists so desperate to shift the burden of proof?

It's the same way anyone tries to shift focus in a losing argument. It's like in global warming, deniers used to say "there's insufficient evidence" and now that there is they just say "im not a scientists so I can't presume to know the answer"

1) Why are theists so desperate to shift the burden of proof?

For the very same reason that non-theists are.

2) I mean, they go to such lengths here. Redefining atheism to mean belief in no gods

Well now...who is it that is redefining "atheism"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

Clearly that *is* what "atheism" means.

3) to make it a positive claim when it is actually a rejection of a claim.

Adopting a non-standard definition of "atheism" and then claiming that others have changed the definition is - well, ridiculous. Logically, differentiating between a positive and negative claim is also rather ridiculous.

4) Now we got questions to the effect of "I don't believe in atheism, therefore I don't have a burden of proof."

That is terrible reasoning. The correct (logical) reasoning is, "Whether I do or don't believe in something, I don't have a burden of proof regarding that belief or that something."

5) Are theists admitting when they do this that there is no evidence for gods at all?

Only if you are redefining several additional standard English words!

It is obvious that what some regard as proof others deny. Some like to claim it is a circular argument but, I disagree. Many people find other things like ghost, having a soul, big foot, the loch ness monster etc. believable. They may attribute claims as evidence however when one investigates these claims of evidence it is found they are more claim than evidence. In fact assumptions built on stories. All religions are this way. Of course those who believe in them will flatly deny and continue to claim their reasoning is evidence however it is not just atheist that demand better proof theist of other religions demand better proof. If any religion could prove their claims I think the world would have but one religion. No doctrine or scripture has been able to justifiably prove the existence of any god. They are all claims based on stories told by people who are no longer around. They offer no merit in terms of record other than stories. Stories that were recorded generations after the proposed claimed events in most cases. This type of grapevine news reporting would have little claim in today's events. Today we live in the information age and still with all the instant technology available to us claims on a current event can be reported falsely by professional people trained to do just that job. The Bible and all other scriptures are profoundly over rated in their ability to give accurate accounts for many reasons. They were not recorded timely, much has been lost in language, in translation, in having been rewritten and by other influences such as denomination or sects. The point of burden remains to be on those who claim something exist that that they can not prove in a repeated demonstration or with the senses. All theist have to do is demonstrate god exist. NOT for us to imagine or believe but, through physical, demonstrable means.

I'll offer that the etymologically satisfying "ghedh" can be expressed as the mathematical statement "god hat" with the proof of the value p=1. Where is your proof or evidence that there is no god aside from testimony? "There is no god" is an affirmation that requires a burden of proof of the absence of god.

You can get away with soft atheism, but mathematically, that's just agnosticism. The burden of proof is on you. We have offered ours.

Im a former aithiest and I don't think about it. I really don't care. I'm on here so I'll just keep existing I guess. I don't care tbh

Seriously. Rather than producing evidence of a god (which would end all arguments), they want atheists to produce perfect evidence of absence.

I wonder, do they believe in all the things that can't be disproved? Even they know that burden of proof shifting is wrong, yet they'll use it when it suits them.

I've shown the proof often enough. Atheists tend to ignore what I say or go, "Nun-nah" like a little child. You have enough proof. More, if you'd quite wasting time whining that no one shows it to you.

I can't help you're like a little child closing your eyes and then crying because you can't see.

To me, it seems like they do that because they know there's no actual evidence for their God. That or they just don't get the concept.

Why can you not understand that you are claiming something exists and therefore the onus is on you!

“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens

When will you face the fact that the first person to produce a single tiny little piece of verifiable evidence for any god will become world famous and mega rich!

Academia states that in the absence of any sort of evidence of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable evidence is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

When will you look at the very real evidence your claims are false?

The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

We need not "shift" for we have never has the burden to prove that which we believe we have found, that everyone else requires and that we validate in the sales of.