Atheism Is a Burden of Proof Fallacy

I've spent a lot of time arguing with atheists on YouTube and Reddit (a mistake, I know), and what I've come to realize is that atheism is basically an elaborate burden of proof fallacy built around some "Enlightenment" ideas about epistemology.

For thousands of years mankind has asked "How did the world get here?" and answered that question theistically: "Some god/gods created it." This has been the working model literally forever. It was believed by Moses, Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Jesus, Mohammed, and Newton.

The need for an explanation partly arises from the problem of entropy. We know the universe is moving from order to chaos, and if entropy has been acting for eternity there should no longer be any order. Humans shouldn't exist, earth shouldn't exist, the solar system shouldn't exist. So how was entropy reversed to create the world? The god model is the answer humans have always given. Atheists have invented many convoluted alternative models, but none of them have the historical precedent or simplified explanatory power of the traditional answer: "God did it." Therefore, the burden of proof is on the atheists.

The atheists I've argued with online usually utilize the same argument: "You don't have enough proof for God's existence to justify belief." Their argument is backwards, they should be on the receiving end: "The theistic model has been used since the dawn of history and never been falsified. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, the atheist, to demonstrate that it's false." Even atheists admit they can't disprove God ("you can't prove a negative"), therefore theism is still the default model.