How do atheists explain their inconsistency with their threshold of proof?

That's the thing, they don't.

Among the other answers, probably also because believers can say pretty much anything is proof of a god or gods, such as a storm, or a wave, or a butterfly, or a tree, or love, or intelligence, or reverence. Atheists can't explain everything, but they believe that it shouldn't be explained away by a phantom just because it makes you feel better.

This burden of proof argument is getting old, because it seems to me the people that have blinders on in the debate are mostly strict theists.

You're right that it doesn't have direct observational evidence for it's existence so could easily not exist (although it has a lot of indirect evidence), the difference is that the Oort cloud is a legitimate scientific hypothesis, so it comes from established theories about large scale astrophysics (general relativity, solar system formation, etc.) and most importantly, it CAN potentially be disproved by an experiment/observation.

I hope you see the fallacy in comparing the idea of the Oort cloud, which is a good scientific hypothesis that already has indirect evidence, to the idea of a God, which mostly comes from books written and edited by people in the bronze age who thought the Earth was flat.

I would love to know the source for the creationist obsession with the Oort Cloud. It doesn't have anything to do with evolution & is simply weird. Did Answers in Genesis tell you this? An old Henry Morris textbook? Those A Beka Book home-schooling atrocities?

We simply follow the available evidence. A lot more evidence exists for the existence of the Oort cloud than for the existence of any god you'd care to name. The evidence may be indirect, but in some cases that is all we have and it is surely a lot better than no evidence.

If indirect evidence was worthless, we'd hardly ever be able to convict a single criminal.

There is indirect evidence for the Oort cloud that gives reasons for Astronomers to believe it exists

There is none for God.

We have direct evidence for the Oort Cloud as Voyager One is in it.

However, atheism does not mean "believes in Oort Cloud." It means "doesn't believe in any god including yours." That would be Kali, right?

What has the Oort cloud got to do with atheism? I have yet to see any definition of atheism, in any text book, that says that atheism = a belief in the Oort cloud. I was under the impression that my atheism was based on my seeing no evidence for the existence of a god,

An atheist is merely one who does not accept the existence of any god, mainly due to a complete lack of any supporting evidence. There is no burden of proof from an atheist, that proof (or compelling evidence) is the responsibility of those who make the claim that a god is real. Ball is in your court ....

If I had a proof that God doesn't exist,

you would deny it.

So! For logical reasoning, you will never be

able to accept some logical concept.

Yours are faith! Yeah! Your argues are about faith!

So! Your proof are about faith!

Very weak, isn't it?

It is based on knowledge we have of using advanced scanners and satellites and what not. You dont need to see something in order to know its there if you have other form of means in knowing its there. The oort cloud is BELIEVED as in not enough info has been found to THEORIZE that it does exist and MORE info is need to CONFIRM it really is what it is. Can you see air? can you see earths core? if not then why does anyone believe they exist. Its simply put a detectives case, the detective didnt see the crime, they use info they find through other means to hypothesize who the killer is.