Atheism is just a lack of belief. I lack belief in God, so the burden of proof is on you.

The distinction is real and I am glad to grant it: someone who has never considered the question is not asserting anything, and pretending otherwise is cheap. The question is what happens once a person starts giving reasons.

1. Grant the distinction, fully. There is a genuine difference between absence of belief and belief that there is no God. An infant, or someone raised with no exposure to the concept, denies nothing and owes no argument. Any answer that ignores this is answering a caricature, and plenty of internet atheism and internet apologetics trade in exactly that.

2. But a label does not move a burden. The moment someone says "there is no evidence for God" or "the resurrection is a legend," a claim has been made, whatever the self-description. Burdens attach to assertions, not to identities. You can call yourself a lack-of-belief atheist and still be making assertions every minute.

3. "No evidence" is a universal negative. To say there is no evidence for God is to survey the cosmological, fine-tuning, moral, consciousness, and historical arguments and rule them all out. That is an enormous claim about the state of the literature. It needs an argument, and repeating it more loudly is not one.

4. Reasons are claims, and claims can be tested. If your unbelief was produced by reasons, those reasons are propositions someone can examine. If it was not produced by reasons, then it is a mood rather than a position, and it has no stake in a discussion about truth. Either way, the conversation continues rather than ending at the label.

5. Turn it around: the move proves far too much. On this logic, a flat-earther could say he merely lacks belief in a globe and therefore owes nothing. Someone convinced the moon landing was staged could say he merely lacks belief in the footage. Any position whatsoever could exempt itself simply by describing itself as an absence, and a device that shields every view shields none.

6. The Christian accepts the burden. Peter tells believers to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). That is a command to argue, not to assert. So the arguments are on the table: contingency, beginning of the universe, fine-tuning, moral knowledge, consciousness, and the resurrection as a historical claim.

7. Scripture's own claim is testable. Paul says God's invisible attributes have been "clearly perceived... in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20), and the psalmist calls the denial a judgment of the heart rather than a neutral datum (Psalm 14:1). Those are claims about what is available to everyone, and they can be argued for or against on the merits.

8. Say what would count. Most disputes about evidence stall because the standard is never specified. Ask the question directly: what kind of thing would you accept as evidence for a non-physical mind behind the universe? If the answer is "a physical object in a laboratory," the demand has already assumed its conclusion.

9. This is not about winning. The point of pressing the question is not to trap anyone. It is that the strongest version of unbelief is the one that states its case and defends it, and the strongest version of Christianity is the one that answers. Both of those are better than a standoff over who has to speak first.

You may define yourself however you like, and I will not argue with your vocabulary. But if the unbelief is a conclusion, it is fair to ask what reasons support it, and fair to examine them in the open.

Sources: Gregory Koukl; Tactics; William Lane Craig; Frank Turek; I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist.

Related challenges:
• IF God exists, He’s maniacal. If He WANTED to forgive sin, He’s 'all-powerful' and 'all-loving' – He could just, SHAZAM, forgive sin. Instead, He sends down His only Son to be slaughtered and murdered to take care of the sin problem. Now THAT’S evil!
• I hear a lot about “intelligent design.” Has this now proven God and falsified evolution?
• How would you respond to Victor Stenger’s stinging assertion that religious argument leads universally to dismal failure and untold suffering?