Is this the right way to think about Atheism?

[Anomalocaris]

In the absence of evidence, the I log rational conclusion is to withhold judgement.

You can't form reasonable beliefs from a lack of evidence, but you can point out it's more rational to disbelieve a position lacking evidence.

Theists seem to believe their position is true by default, and you are simply denying it. That's not true: they simply don't see there's a claim being made, and you don't think it reasonable to accept claims lacking evidence.

Very seldom is there a complete lack of evidence. For something as overarching a an entity that created everything, literally everything forms part of a milieu of evidence. The question is are the aggregate collection of evidence presently available conclusive? If not, which possible interpretation of their meanings requires on the whole a lesser body of additional assumptions beyond available evidence.