An argument from lack of evidence is any display of mistrust towards faith-based beliefs. Bertrand Russell's China Teapot and Christopher Hitchen's Razor are popular allegories and aphorisms trying to explain why belief in God's existence in the absence of proof is unreasonable.
According to the classical widespread definition of explicit knowledge originating in Plato, a belief must be accompanied by a good inference supportive of its truth in order to qualify as knowledge. Arguments from lack of evidence/proof of God combine this notion with the idea that knowledge is the only form of belief one should seek. This is simply an epistemological commitment to forming true beliefs. Since the existence of God (and religious beliefs in general) is predicated upon the practice of blind faith, it follows that belief in God is not a form of knowledge and should be rejected on the same grounds; regardless of whether the atheist can provide positive evidence of absence of gods. This is what philosophers and attorneys know as "the burden of proof": whoever asserts the claim is bound to demonstrate it, should he like others to believe alike.
Theologian Alvin Plantinga building upon presuppositionalist apologetics contends that belief in God is "properly basic", that is, an axiom or premise necessary to make sense of the world and acquire further knowledge.