You just said it, there is much evidence that there isn't a God, so why not atheism. I was brought up a Christian, taught at a Catholic school for years met with nuns and priests and a bishop, but if you really think about it the existence of a god is so unlikely that you might as well be an atheist.

If you were an OMNIPOTENT, which a god is supposed to be, would you want to concern yourself with all the nonsense that all religion on this tiny blue dot of a planet is about, or would you be off enjoying the infinite delights of the infinite universe?

I don't need anything for me to believe no deity exits, it is, or should be, the default position for everything in life. I need proof that a deity exists for me to believe in him.

I believed no god exists. And no supernatural. It make me feel freedom and peaceful. But i have a question. who created Quran?? Why Quran said about science in last 1400 years ago. And its was proved in 20th century?

If there is a deity of any kind resposible for the creation of humans and the universe, its pretty obvious that he, she, it or they do not possess anything resembling a human set of values. Why would a diety who supposedly loves the human race, create a world in which parasites exist that eat children's eyeballs? That's only one of my beefs.

Lack of evidence.

Zero evidence. What makes you believe one or some might?

First we should define some terms. Atheist does not necessarily believe in the non-existence of a deity or a god[s]. Most atheists are what lay people call agnostics. Let's try it like this for defining terms:
Hard Atheist- Believes no god or gods exist

Soft Atheist- Does not accept that the evidence for the existence of a god or gods is sufficient to draw a reasonable conclusion in favor of existence.

Agnostic- Does not accept that there is enough evidence for OR against the existence of a deity.

The subtle difference is that for most Agnostics, the question of the existence of deities is still on the table for further scrutiny, unlike a Soft Atheist who is typically apathetic. Compare those to a Hard Atheist who has somehow proven the existence of a negative.

These are vast generalizations and need to be taken with a huge pinch of salt and an entire peck of pickled peepers. But to answer your original question, I, and probably most atheists do not believe in the non-existence of a deity, but are unsatisfied with the evidence, or lack thereof.

Therefore, no belief is needed to make the statement that I would to most theists- "Prove it".

Atheism is not based on a belief - It is the default position and makes no claims
It is simply a rejection of the belief in god/gods.
Belief is arrived at through Knowledge
Knowledge are those beliefs that meet the scientific standard of evidence - True beliefs.
Therefore beliefs can be considered false if not based on proper evidence.

In the absence of prove there is nothing. You can not prove nothing, unless you accept the concept that if you can't prove some thing exist it doesn't.

Well, two possible answers. Recognized deities like Yahweh, because they're based on absurd claims that have been discovered to be incredibly unlikely such as Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve and many many other examples too numerous to list here. A generic deity could exist I suppose, but since that deity doesn't interact in my reality and there is no evidence of it I run my life not accepting the claim that one does exist.

Simply put, your question supplies it's own resolution.
As an ex Catholic, I was subject to the concepts of 'Belief' and 'Faith' very early on.
As I got older, I parted company with the church fir many reasons, the most important for me being my development of 'Understanding'.
Nowadays, I spend much less time worrying about filling gaps in my knowledge with self grown belief. What matters is what you as an individual understand and what we as a society are capable of developing in the future. We rest less and less on the ever more complex shoe Horning of the Bible onto gaps in knowledge. The politico social texts of ancient Middle Eastern thinkers is no longer relevant.
It is not belief if it is understanding.

It is the same reason I don't believe in big foot, ghosts , fairies or that intelligent aliens have visited the earth. There is simply no evidence. And the existence of complex, intelligent life is not a sufficient arguement because that is just an arguement from incredulity if one thinks it requires a deity to exsist. We have enough evidence from naturalism to hypothesis an explanation for complex life.

To say Atheism is a belief is to tacitly buy into the religious definition of faith. Atheism is not a faith, it is concentrated doubt, that follows the flow of evidence rather than trying to pathetically swim upstream.

Because nobody has presented any real evidence of a deity.

An Atheist does not believe that no deities exist, instead they do not believe that deities exist. By one is a positive claim of belief and the other a lack of belief, with which the lack of belief being the actual definition of an Atheist. As an Atheist, I am unconvinced that a god exists and can exist but I am not unwilling to consider the possibility that one does or can, I am simply unconvinced of it. Saying "I don't believe you can do 3 back flips in a row." Is similar but not the same as "I believe you can't do 3 back flips in a row." To put it in non-god terms.

The complete lack of any compelling evidence that a deity exists.

For starters, I've yet to hear a clear, discernible and, most important, testable definition of a good or deity.

Just little update on the courtroom analogy I posted before.

That's easy… no real proof.

I don't believe that god doesn't exist. That's why I'm an Atheist. I simply lack a belief in god as an unproven assumption. A belief that god doesn't exist would be a religious position, something taken on faith.

The word Agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog. He defined it as A-Gnostic, or without knowledge. Similarly, A-Theism means without belief in god. The two words address two different things, knowledge and belief. You can have knowledge without belief, and belief without knowledge. I am an Agnostic Atheist, as I see no evidence of god and therefore lack a belief in god. I am also an Antitheist, as I believe that religion is bad for humanity.

Simple... the null hypothesis. [en.wikipedia.org]

Atheism is not an assertion, it's a rejection of theist claims based on lack of evidence.

Furthermore, I would contend that someone who claims to be an agnostic is, in practice, an atheist. Do you accept as valid the claims of theists? No? Then you're a non-theist (sometimes known as an atheist). In my view, there is not a 'middle ground'. If you don't accept theist claims as valid, that means you don't believe in god(s). You can do some hand waving regarding gnosis, but knowledge (or the lack thereof) is not equivalent to belief (although it can inform it).

I have never seen anything which hints a god exists. I've never heard of evidence proving a god exists. I believe there are no gods, 99.9% sure. Would a hardline atheist still deny the existence of a god if such a thing were proven? I reserve that . 01% for accepting the existence, via the scientific method, because I'm droning on and lost interest to make any more words about this

It is about probability.

We have no evidence for any supernatural entity, place or event. Zero. Absence of evidence does not prove a negative, but in the case of something that claims to be this pervasive, constant and "omni", we can make a safe conclusion that the claim of a god is very unlikely.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. The existence of gods is an outrageous claim, pervasive as it is. Yet the evidence to support this claim is not provided. In cases such as the bible, koran, torah, book of mormon and the deuterocanonical it is easy to conclude that the god described within is false. The statement that no god exists is much more broad.

Quantum theory implies that I can jump through a wall. Mind you that it is possible, but extremely unlikely. I do not try to jump through walls when I am in a hurry because I am confident enough that it will fail that I don't live my life on the off chance that it might work. I claim to be an atheist, not because I claim a 0% chance of god, but because the chance is so small that the effort of belief would almost certainly be a waste of time.

The concept of their being a god, or gods, seems ridiculous to me. i can't entertain a "maybe" about it; it's like reserving judgment on whether or not the tooth fairy exists, even after you've seen your mom sneak a quarter under your pillow (is that still the going rate?) the line between not believing in something and believing in the absence of something is slim, and sometimes (not always) just semantic (not to knock semantics). i don't go around trying to convince everyone there are no gods, but i don't go around wondering either. i think that makes me an atheist. to me, an agnostic feels the verdict is still out. i just do not feel that doubt.

g