There is no God.

[Ben Davis]

---

I like to be pedantic about this because of the implication of your statement here. What you're defining isn't 'atheism', it's 'antitheism': you're not disbelieving a positive claim in favour of theism, you're making a positive claim in opposition to theism. Antitheism is a subset of atheism but they're not the same thing. Your implication of dishonesty (that atheists are dodging a burden of proof by defining atheism in a particular way) is demonstrably wrong, unjustified and feeds some of the mischaracterisations of atheists which are used by aggressive theists to cause harm to non-believers.

Regarding the Abrahamic gods, I share your antitheism: they're demonstrable nonsense and sharing & popularising that information is a laudable goal. I'd simply ask you, please can you rethink the way you phrase your point so that you avoid giving ammo to theists who would do you harm?

---

I wholeheartedly embrace the label "anti-theist." I wish more atheists would as I see it to be the only moral and logical response to religious thinking, all things considered. But I reject the claim that I'm portraying atheists as somehow dishonest when they shift the burden of proof back to whom it belongs (the believers). I've stated that much clearly--the burden is not on us, but we also shouldn't simply sit around and wait for theists to try to make their case...they never have and never will, yet so many continue to be deceived. We should, in my opinion, be actively making the case against God, because science gives us a pretty good one.

And that's the point, isn't it. Anti-theism is a positive claim which has a burden of proof and you respond to that burden by using rebuttals of theistic claims (e.g. biblical historical claims vs archaeological evidence, religious 'omni' claims vs logical absolutes). Atheists are not being dishonest when shifting the burden of proof back but if you hold an antitheistic position and do the same, that is dishonest. By then trying to classify all atheists as antitheists, you mischaracterise the atheists position on burdens of proof. That can be dangerous as it lets theists accuse atheists of being dishonest. Does that make sense?