You could add: the secular science of psychology and cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy have solved the “demon” thing.

Feeding 5000 people, twice. How about feeding 6 Billion, every day. That was considered impossible, but was solved thanks to my god – science.

Curing a few people of blindness. How about restoring sight to millions of people thanks to simple cataract operations, thanks to my god.

Curing a few people of diseases. How about completely eradicating a disease from the planet, or drastically reducing the probability of most people contracting many diseases, thanks to my god.

Casting out demons. I’ve never quite understood that one since I never met a demon or someone possessed by one. I guess it is solved by reducing ignorance and superstition in the world, thanks to my god.

I think you’re right. I make a similar point about how we mistake ourselves into believing supernatural things are even possible, by not thinking through the fallacious shortcuts we tackle in our reasoning, in The Argument from Specified Complexity against Supernaturalism.

Atheists have only ever responded to god claims with evidence and arguments for the improbability of gods. Thus meeting their burden of evidence. That’s the only reason the burden now has shifted to theists.

What I’m driving at is if atheism has always been a negative response to positive theistic claims (and historically, this has always been the case), why wouldn’t the burden of proof always fall on the theist?

And what I’m driving at is that this is only the case because atheists have thereby already met their burden of evidence (with abundant evidences and arguments for the improbability of a god). And that is why the burden now falls on the theist.

What I’m driving at is if atheism has always been a negative response to positive theistic claims (and historically, this has always been the case), why wouldn’t the burden of proof always fall on the theist?

You don’t need Bayesian probability to establish burden of proof. Who bears the burden of proof can be established on historical grounds alone. For example:

Since the god debate and the terms upon which it is argued were first started by theists, and atheism only exists because it is a response to theism on terms initially set by theists, it is theists who always bear the burden of proof.

Conversely, the atheist never bears the burden of proof because he is merely responding to the god hypothesis, which was initially offered by theists, in a debate whose terms were initially set by theists. Historically speaking, all atheism is a response to religious arguments first devised by priests and theologians.

Conclusion:

The theist always bears the burden of proof.

I think a major problem is that our language uses potentially misleading shortcuts, so that if I were to say “I saw Aleister cure a paralytic with a crystal wand” as ‘accurately’ as possible, I would have to say something like “At a time when I’m quite sure I was experiencing reality (and not having a vision/dream), I appeared to see the person I know as Aleister Crowley appear to cure a person who I’m quite sure was actually a paralytic (and not a stooge, etc) with what looked to me like a crystal wand.”

This is obviously a convoluted way of talking. But people get genuinely confused, thinking that “I saw him CURE someone” means “the person was really cured”, which isn’t a claim that we can objectively make, since we are by nature subjective experiencers.

It’s like tossing out all the low priors…

It’s unclear what your point is.

Hume’s argument was proto-Bayesian (Bayes was his contemporary; Hume did not know of his discovery when he wrote On Miracles).

Your reasoning isn’t sound. Lots of things that only happen once or rarely happen actually happen. So no frequentist argument can reach the conclusion that simply because something is rare, that it’s false. You need a more sophisticated calculation than that. And when you work out what that would have to be, you discover just was Thomas Bayes did. There is no way around it.