The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. While the absence of evidence may not be proof of the absence of evidence, it does give us a rational starting point. It is evidence. It is good to show the distinction between evidence and proof. Proof is a compilation of evidence and facts that lead to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt and evidence is one supporting factor in a given theory. No would be consider rational for supporting the prosecution of people without evidence, that is because the lack of evidence is evidence. There is no evidence of Sam stabbing Ruth, so we have no rational grounds to convict Sam. And while this alone may not be proof, there may still be motive and opportunity, but without evidence there is not case. Furthermore when it comes to atheistic claim that there is no god, many agnostics and theists will cry out that I have no evidence. But I do.The fundamental misunderstanding is described above. The lack of evidence for god is evidence and based upon this and this alone I am rational in assuming or starting with the idea that there are no gods. This conclusion is valid with many other premises, such as with Santa Claus, Pink Unicorns, The Tooth Fairy, and other magical beings. But the gods get special treatment because of political, social, and personal biases. But it is no different. Just like I am rational in saying because we have no evidence of a tooth fairy or a Santa Claus we are rational in saying that there is no Santa Claus or Pink Unicorns. I am therefore rational in saying there is no god, and the burden of proof is still upon the one making the claim that there are indeed gods.