However, if the god being denied is of a less interventionist, or deist, type god, then the above argument regarding evidence doesn't work.
On the other hand as said "evidence" is simply asserted and isn't testable in any way, it is a lot less than wholly convincing and we return to "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Whether atheism also requires a person to disbelieve in all other forms of magic, or ghosts, or psychic powers is also a question.
These are not "gods" in the conventional sense at all, but they are still supernatural entities or powers.
Consequently many pragmatic atheists would argue that the burden of proof does not lie with them to provide evidence against the extraordinary concept that gods exist.
They would argue that it is up to the supporters of various religions to provide evidence for the existence of their own deities, and that no argument is necessary on the atheist's part.
Explicit atheists can be weak or strong atheists, but all strong atheists are explicit atheists.
Weak atheism (sometimes equated with "pragmatic atheism" or "negative atheism") describes the state of living as if no gods exist.
Strong atheism specifically combats religious beliefs and other arguments for belief in some god (or gods), such as Pascal's Wager, and argument from design.
These arguments tend to be geared toward demonstrating that the concept of god is logically inconsistent or incoherent in order to actively disprove the existence of a god.
There are many ways to describe different types of atheism and some of these are explained below.