yeah its called university, I meant I don't know anything about microbiology since semester is yet to start. Yeah Im planning to get a Masters if God wills and then become a researcher in the field.
As for Muslims calling Allah God, well in general cases, especially when addressing a non-Muslim audience we are allowed to use this term, to avoid the misconception of Allah and God being two different things. Basically the God of the Abrahamic faiths (i.e. the one in the O.T. and the Father in N.T.) and Allah are one and the same. Muslims, generally speaking, use the terms God and Allah pretty much interchangeably, save some special cases like lets say prayer etc.
The only reason we as Muslims use the term Allah is it is a tad bit more comprehensive, because (Im being brief here) while the traditional picture of an Almighty Omniscient personal God is present in Islaam, there are some additional attributes which are unique to Islaam and no other religion. So Allah carries the notion of the Islaamic Deity, while the term God is somewhat general.
As for Dr. Chomsky, according to New York Times he is "arguably the most important intellectual alive". Yeah Im a really big fan of his (which makes me one in a few billions I guess), I think he is one of the most- if not THE most- brilliant minds of our time. Ever since the Vietnaam war he has been a very vocal critic of the US foreign policy. His works and lectures are simple and reach a wide range of audience.
And erm hes not really a philosopher, he is originally a linguist (professor in M.I.T.). He has got his own theory in the field, I read a bit about it but forgot. The main appeal about him however is his works on current world affairs.
As for the issue of burden of proof, although for the most part I agree with you and twocows, sometimes it would fall on the atheist as well. To cite one case as an example:
Theist claims Religion X is from God based on premise Y (lets say historicity or scriptural evidence i.e. prophecies etc.), but he didnt give proof for the existence of God to begin with. In other words, his argument is, one will rationally arrive at two conclusions once he considers the Premise Y, a) a God being existent and b) the religion being from God.
Atheist however would not give him any benefit of doubt, because he claims that first one needs to establish independent evidence for the existence of God before arguing about a religion.
In this case I would argue that the atheist's reasoning is fallacious and he needs to give his reasons behind not giving the theist any benefit of doubt. In other words, in this case the burden of proof would fall on the atheist as well.
A lot can be said on this issue though, I just presented one scenario.