What is Atheism?

[Nonpareil]

But really, the motivation behind all the fuss is the contention that theists alone have any burden of proof.

No. Both sides carry a burden of proof.

It is just that atheists meet theirs.

When their objections to the best explanation (Classical theism) are revealed as irrelevant or incoherent AND their multitude of alternative explanations are shown to be weak and inadequate, they run away like petulant children shouting, "Yeah, but you cannot PROVE God exists!"

Theism, classical or otherwise, is not the "best explanation" for anything. It has literally zero explanatory power. It is functionally equivalent to "because magic".

If homeopathy was believed in for centuries and almost everyone but a few irrationally skeptical scientists believed in it unquestioningly, to prove it really works, the null hypothesis to overcome would still be 'homeopathically treated water is indistinguishable from the same water if not homeopathically treated in its medical effects'.

I guess what you are trying to say is that a world without God is indistinguishable from a world in which God exists. Is it? That begs the question by assuming you already know what a godless universe would look like.

No. He is pointing out that the null hypothesis is not a question of how many people believe a certain proposition to be true. The null hypothesis is not determined by consensus. It is the position which has already met its burden of proof - that is, the position that does not posit the existence of any entities or properties of entities not already in evidence.

And we don't assume that we know what a godless universe looks like. We conclude it, because we see a universe that apparently lacks gods.

'The world is all that exists' is the null hypothesis. If you want to show that something besides the world exists, that's the proposition that you need to overcome.

If you are going to take that to the ultimate extreme then the null hypothesis is actually solipsism.

No. Solipsism is incoherent, and boils down to semantic games. It is the null hypothesis up until the point where you actually start experiencing anything, at which point it is discarded.

We are saying that the proposition "God exists' is the most parsimonious explanation that accounts for the most observable facts about reality.

You are also failing to back this up.