Given a finite mind and an incomplete set of facts, there is no way for a human to prove anything.
Even things science considers “laws” cannot be shown to be universal across space and time.
Thus there is no burden of proof on anyone and each of us can and must proceed to make life and death decisions based not on that which can be shown to be absolutely right or wrong but on that which either makes, or does not make subjective sense.
IOW, factor in all the factors you like but ultimately it seems best to act on what feels best and do that which makes as many humans as happy as possible.
This also seems to make the idea of an atheist/theist argument antithetical to both parties as neither party can prove their first principles, much less provide a definitive answer to the topic under consideration.
So these debates seem pointless except as one considers the possibility that each side simply enjoys arguing and is happiest when he or she is in contention, or more said perhaps more correctly, is being contentious.
Or does someone want to argue that he has become omnipotent and that there are things he or she knows for absolutely certain?