Atheism is an untenable position to hold due to the Philosopher's Burden of Proof.

For the sake of avoiding arguing semantics, I'm defining atheism as the belief that God does not exist, i.e. "without a theism" which is a set of beliefs that includes a belief in God. I'm defining agnosticism as uncertainty regarding the existence of God, i.e. "without knowledge" of the existence of God, one way or the other.

Newborn babies cannot talk to us. They have yet to understand language. The newborn knows nothing and therefore the default position is agnosticism. This is important because this makes atheism a "negative claim". Specifically, this makes atheism an "absolute negative" claim.

In order to prove an absolute negative claim, the claimer must possess perfect knowledge of all things. Perfect knowledge of all things is otherwise known as omniscience and is widely regarded as a Divine attribute in discussions of the Divine.

In order for someone to successfully claim that God doesn't exist, they would have to achieve some degree of Godhood themselves by having omniscience.

So, in order to disprove the existence of God, one would need to first become God, or at least omniscient, which is pretty Godly. That's essentially a dynamic contradiction that is baked into the position.

Maintaining atheism is like pitching a tent next to a landmine.