It is often said by Atheists and similar that when talking about God the burden of proof is on the Theists. I guess that this is standard operating procedure in philosophy - those that think something IS, have to prove it, rather than the other way round.

However, it occurred to me that in the case of God, this seems counter-intuitive. I may be way off, and this is mostly the jumbled flow of a two minute thought last night, but here's my logic....

Most Atheists subscribe to a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist theory of evolution and development. As far as I understand it, part of the theory includes the idea that common traits amongst established species are probably good, otherwise they would have been selected out.

Now, all (maybe there's one or two, but I'm yet to hear of them) cultures around the world are originally theistic in some form or another and have some form of spiritual worship. Social evolution theory might say that this is a good thing (hence why it's stuck around), because it brings communities together or something, or gives them a crutch when times are hard, or helps manage fear and depression. Heck, one of them might even be true!

So sticking with this idea of it being a good thing, for whatever reason, why are the evolutionists now telling us that it is definitely not true and is a delusion? Delusion, in my book, has always been a bad thing. Presumably the Atheists believe they have overcome the shackles of our Neanderthal-esque beliefs and that now non-belief is somehow beneficial for the progression (see comments here for a wide range of ideas on this) and advancement of the human race.

Therefore, if this state of a-theisim is a secondary, allegedly more advanced stage of human development and evolution, surely the burden of dis-proof should be on the Atheist, rather than the Theist?

Or I could be talking complete codswallop. I look forward to being informed either way.