The problem some atheist have is that they are spoon feed idioms from atheist YT channels who never really explain to them the subject matter a little more comprehensively. While it is true the burden of proof (Onus Probandi) is on the person making a claim…it is *not* nor ever has been explicitly only on the person making a claim. The burden of proof (BoP) is attached when anyone has an ontological position on the state of affairs of reality. If you believe p you have a BoP. If you do not believe p (withhold assent) you have a BoP. Most of the time many of the reasons why you withhold assent are the same reasons one would use to justify a belief God does not exist. So by merely playing hide the burden ball by trying to adopt a position without a positive epistemic status it doesn’t absolve one from providing justification to why they failed to affirm.
That’s all a burden of proof is here. An epistemic burden to why you believe p is true, believe p is false or why you fail to believe either way. Given that there are two dichotomous positions Bp V ~Bp then you clearly have two available positions. Believe or don’t believe…and every position requires reason. Atheist can really up their game by acknowledging no matter whatever flavor of atheism they prefer that simply holding a position of nonbelief requires justification. If not then agnostics like me would be free of any burden of proof or justification to explain why we are agnostic…and that really would seem rather unfair now wouldn’t it?
-Pope of Agnosticism
An example: If I ask “Is it past noon yet?” and you say “I don’t believe so.” and I ask you why you don’t believe it’s past noon and you say “I have no reasons” then should I really take you as credible on if it is past noon or not if you don’t give me your reasons? That’s a burden of proof.