Shifting the Burden of Proof

What are the good arguments that atheism is true?
This phrase may be convincing to some, and is used by WLC in his debates, but my disdain for it can be seen in the WLC v. Hitchens debate in which Hitchens corrects WLC that the phrasing is misleading and commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Hitchens correctly says that atheism is the position that a certain set of claims isn't true, not a claim in of itself. After WLC commits the same mistake directly following Hitchen's correction, Hitchens spends more time correcting WLC adding "I wish you would get this bit right." Nonetheless, he didn't get it right, for he continued to use the misleading flawed charge against Hitchens multiple times thereafter. The only conclusion I can muster is that WLC was following the mantra that "if you say a lie long enough, it becomes truth." Alas, here is the correction.

The world fits the null hypothesis better than the alternative. The null hypothesis,H₀, is the method of assuming that a claim is false, and then you compare the null hypothesis (H₀=God does not exist) to H₁ (H₁:=God exists). If the evidence fits H₁ better than H₀, then H₀ is rejected and we have evidence for H₁. Otherwise, we conclude in favor of the null hypothesis.

This is why it is meaningless to ask for evidence that atheism is correct, for it is a rejection of a claim, and it is the lack of evidence for the alternate hypothesis that makes the conclusion of atheism being valid. So the question is, what would we expect to be different from a universe with no god than a universe with a god? This answer has been answered in different ways in the past, either that the Earth is the center of the universe, that there are no atheists, that if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, that you will be able to move mountains, or societal health will be linked to the proportion of a certain religion. This essentially asks, "what are the real world consequences or manifestations of god." If there is no difference from a universe without god and one with, then he effectively does not exist.

So, returning to the original question, the correct answer is that thus forward, our observations support the null hypothesis rather than the alternative hypothesis that god exists. Additionally, one could say that by continuing to fail to support H₁, one is accumulating more evidence against its existence, which would support the conclusion that god does not exist.

Prove Atheism
And if they go for the more ridiculous charge of "prove atheism", I wouldn't mind getting a little facetious in my answer.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods.
I lack belief in a god or gods.
Therefore atheism exists.
Q.E.D.