[Jack]

The atheist demands evidence for the theists' claims of the existence of God. However, any theistic interpretation of evidence (creation from nothing, special revelation, virgin birth, etc.) is precluded in advance.

Using Biblical tales, themselves unsubstantiated, to attempt to substantiate theology is indeed unacceptable evidence of god"s existence. The evidence must first be substantiated, shown to be valid and testable, before it can be introduced as support for the claims of god's existence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If gods exist in reality and affect reality, there ought to be evidence that can be skeptically examined and remain valid.

The atheist hasn't proven by empirical observation or logic his or her commitment to Naturalism.

Nor do we need to except when proposing naturalism as an alternative to theism. Simply asking theists for evidence that supports their contentions does not obligate me to provide evidence that supports my skepticism. In other words, we're discussing what I don't see any reason to accept, not what I do have reason to accept.