The question is asked as to why one may have to BEGIN with atheism as the default view and for the onus to be on theists to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This is reasonable for in the first place atheism is NOT a belief system - it is the default case which reason asks us to take in lieu of anything being proven to be the case - Occam's Razor is the logic which shows that we MUST presume to be atheist,much as one is assumed NOT guilty in a court of law UNTIL one is proven guilty.Moreover,even AFTER the fact and having weighed up evidence by reason one is still impressed to HAVE to be atheist by the sheer lack of credible evidence for anything else. We need not have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of our case - only that it proves it beyond a reasonable doubt,much as there is sufficient evidence to accept EVOLUTION as a theory over CREATION. We see NO evidence of a creative hand,only evidence of a complex algorithm that creates creatures and allows them to evolve in response to the environment. Cases of certain Flatfish for example show that their eyes have migrated around their head over time and cannot have been created,but have responded to a new life lay on one side - the eye that would have been in the sand has evolved to the other side of the head. Likewise those creatures that now live in the dark that used to have eyes - have lost their eyes as they no longer need them - but their skull still shows vestigial eye sockets. This is not God having created creatures - but evolution in action. Evidence exists for atheism - not for creation. Anything a creationist says can be denied by a reasonable argument showing that their own view lacks credibility because they have NOT looked at the scientific evidence and understood it properly. It is they who have a fixed closed mind that presumes God MUST exist no matter what the evidence shows. It is not fair to compare Atheism with other belief systems - because Atheism uses the scientific method and asks for it's assertions to be proven as facts - not just to be held onto by dogmatic faith and unreason -that is - the ideas are TESTED against reality. Creationists do not do this - they say miracles exist because water was turned into wine at one time and just because it hasn't been since doesn't mean it wasn't when it happened - the fact is in order to carry out such a feat someone would have to be either familiar with the laws of physics sufficiently to override them or be a master of sleight of hand - I have seen a cigarette pushed through the middle of a pound coin - but this does not mean it can really happen - as Richard Dawkins says - Creationsists are credibility cows - they do not reason but balk at explanations that they find untenable because of their own ignorance and dogma. Faith is NOT a way to truth.