From Ricky Gervais to reputable scholars, the contemporary trend for atheists is to argue for the assumption of atheism to avoid the burden of proof. But is it true that atheism doesn’t make a knowledge claim, and therefore is the rational starting point? Should we presume atheism when examining worldviews? Does atheism get a pass when shouldering the burden of proof? Does arguing for God sound a lot like arguing for Bigfoot? Definitions, details and discussion to follow.