Have atheists ever considered why a lack of belief in the existence of deities is given a name?

Sure, atheism is simply a rejection of theism, and therefore a "disbelief" (although I am reading that philosophy textbooks define it to be a 'belief'), however I do not consider it similar to a chess player vs. non-chess player argument (where the non-chess players have nothing more in common... show more Sure, atheism is simply a rejection of theism, and therefore a "disbelief" (although I am reading that philosophy textbooks define it to be a 'belief'), however I do not consider it similar to a chess player vs. non-chess player argument (where the non-chess players have nothing more in common than just NOT playing chess), but rather two parties of the same politics...sort of like Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists in U.S. history.

So, really, my question is: why do atheists boast that all they require to reject theism is a lack of proof...especially when proof is already given. Being that their "lack of belief" is an ideology in itself, doesn't that make the "burden of proof" asymmetrical...where theists need to provide a lot and atheists need to provide a little?
18 answers 18