Firstly some clarification here as I think some threads are designed to equate atheism and atheist incorrectly, and to use this misnomer to suggest yet again that atheism carries with it a burden of proof.

Atheism is the absence or lack of belief in a deity or deities, it is nothing more, and therefore carries no burden of proof. This of course includes the idea that it needs to define deities in any way, or define what is and is not acceptable evidence for the claim or belief that a deity exists.

Atheists by definition lack the belief that a deity or deities exist. On it's own as the previous paragraph states, this carries no burden of proof, and that would include the idea they need to define a deity or the evidence they'd require in order to believe a diety exists. Though of course any atheist is free to do this if they are minded to. It goes without saying that a dozen theists together, even with ostensibly the same religious beliefs, are often unlikely to agree on important aspects of that religion's dogma and even doctrinal teachings. Thus to me it is absurd to pose questions to atheists asking them to define a deity, and what evidence would therefore be required for them to believe it. To me this is a dishonest attempt to ignore their actual belief in favour of a generic belief that they don't hold, but which they think they can 'build' evidence on for a deity.

As to evidence they have been asked to provide the best they have, since we already know objective empirical evidence has provided the best results, and science is by far and away the best method for this, then I asked for 'the best objective evidence' they have. The objections to science aside, since I didn't include it in my request, it's hard to see why any theist would not offer the best evidence they claim to have, or why they would object to it being objective? I mean subjective evidence is of little use as we can believe anything, and often do, using subjective evidence.

Now as mentioned above an atheist and atheism are not the same thing, as an atheist can hold irrational and subjective beliefs, and I have encountered atheists who believe in things as outlandish and absurd as a flat earth, ancient aliens, and the worst kind of conspiracy theories. It goes without saying these beliefs have nothing to do with atheism per se. Thus asking people who can hold a subjective opinion, what evidence they would accept for one belief they don't hold is irrational to me, as religious beliefs fall into two ostensible categories, beliefs that are falsifiable and those that are not. Clearly a standard of evidence can't rationally be set for the second by definition.

So in conclusion it has been suggested that theists offering their best 'objective' evidence is a waste of time until they know what will be accepted? If atheists knew this they'd unlikely be atheists. The implication is obvious, and here searches for truth has helped us, as he makes this assertion endlessly, is that atheists are ignorant of some truth that represents evidence for his version of his deity.

So the question is why doesn't he just present this esoteric truth and stop wasting time asking those who don't believe, to offer examples of evidence for something they don't believe in, often when the claims, which vary wildly, are unfalsifiable anyway and no evidence can by definition exist.

So I ask again, as I have done many times, searches for truth, what evidence can you demonstrate that any deity exists?

I can't say what I will accept until it is offered, with a precise definition also offered for the deity that that 'evidence' is being offered to support.

I can tell you since you've asked what I'll accept, that I set the same standard for all claims, as this is the very definition of open minded reasoning. That all ideas and claims are examined without bias. So as a minimum I would require that all claims have objective evidence demonstrated to support them, that are commensurate to the claim. There is no need therefore to rule out what is not contained in that standard, or to give 'examples' of what the standard implies.