Why atheism always has a burden of proof

[Whateverist]

I find Plantinga's modal ontological argument pretty compelling. Once I actually understood it, that is. If that argument is sound (valid reasoning + true premises), then I think it serves as significant evidence. And greater minds than you or I have tried in vain to refute it.

That's an interesting belief you have there. Apparently you think that one should accept as true any argument which no one has been able to refute even if one does not understand it himself. I don't subscribe to this methodology of yours for determining which beliefs to adopt. Then again I am obviously more fussy about what beliefs I will consciously endorse than you.

I hope by now someone has called you on your concept of atheism. It is just a word and like every other word in the English language has a multitude of accepted uses. People who believe your god positively does not exist use it. People who you would call agnostic use it to indicate that in the absence of sufficient evidence they do not hold a belief in gods. People who find the very concept of 'god' incomprehensible use it. Even people who just don't give a crap one way or the other may use it. You may not like that but your displeasure doesn't make much difference here.