I describe myself as an ‘atheist’ on a good day and an ‘agnostic’ on a bad day—these two key ‘terms’ used were never part of my vocabulary some few years ago. Therefore, I perfectly understand it when a lot of people struggle to identify their meanings, and also when they misconstrue their actual meanings.
Interestingly, a lot of people believe that atheism is the opposite of theism; this may be true only to some extent—in the sense that, while theism embodies a set of beliefs, atheism does not.
A theist will hold a set of beliefs and therefore, people by extension erroneously conceive that an atheist also holds a set of beliefs or somehow, the absence of beliefs in itself amounts to a set of beliefs.
When we talk about atheism, the truest and perhaps the most accurate definition I’ve come across which I wholeheartedly agree with is that of ‘New Atheist’ Christopher Hitchens. To paraphrase Hitchens; atheism is the statement that a certain preposition is true—and in this regard, the existence of a God.
From the above, it’s clear that atheists do not hold any set of beliefs and do not make any substantive claim. Rather, they reject the set of beliefs or claims that a God exists on the reasonable grounds that no enough persuasive evidence has been erected in favour of the claim. In fact, such an extraordinary claim that a celestial father, mostly a despot wearing a benign cloak exists reasonably demands that an extraordinary evidence must be provided to back the claim.
It’s the absence of such extraordinary evidence or any shred of evidence which there isn’t an alternative plausible position that has created an increasing generation of ‘New Atheist,’ a clever bunch of individuals who take pride in reason and critical thinking.
Since atheists are not making any substantive claims; it is therefore right and in consonance with the rules of engagement that the burden of proof resides in the quarters of the one making the claim that a God exists—-I mean the theist.

Read more