Wrong phrasing of the question as it doesnt make sense!

That is the key- empirical evidence- when it comes to this 'god.' Empirical evidence we do have indicate yes we are here, floating on a cosmic speck of dust through vast apparently infinite space. Our place in the cosmos scientifically proven- no 'belief' involved save maybe those flat earthers'. Could some of our knowledge change through further inquisition/ testing- YES! That's the beauty of it. Let's also look at the empirical evidence for god or higher power- none! Now start putting very human traits to this man created entity and there is even more doubt on it's existence- 'loving, omnipotent, perfect etc., etc. One only has to look around for this love- disease, poverty, intolerance. In fact if we were 'chosen' why is the vast majority of the earth uninhabitable to man? What would spark the search/ worship of such a being unless fear of the unknown and feeling that we must be going through this for a reward later! No thanks. I'll go through life treating people as I would wish to be treated, not forcing legislation that an imaginary being would want.

There is no god I believe in, so I am an a-theist

The existence of god is a supposition or an hypothesis. And an hypothesis without a backing evidence should be rejected, especially when there is an alternative hypothesis with reliable evidences.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I'm absolutely certain that none of the gods I've ever heard of exist, because there's no proof for them and science contradicts claims about them. I can't rule out the possibility that some other deity exists, but I think it's wildly improbable. Therefore I'm technically an agnostic, but I'm an atheist in practice.

There is some confusion in the question. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/s, not a belief there are no god/s. This is important because it involves how the burden of proof works.
Example from Matt Dilahunty: Someone is on trial for a crime. Now that person is either guilty or innocent of that crime. However, we do not determine innocence in a court of law, we only determine guilty or not guilty. Now lets say when confronted with the evidence, I don't believe that the defendant is guilty, and therefore find them not guilty. That doesn't mean I think that they are innocent. They haven't been proven guilty or innocent, but based on what I have available I don't believe they are guilty, we haven't even examined whether or not they are innocent.
This is the same for the statement "God/s Exists." Atheists are saying, when confronted with the evidence, that we find that God/s are "not guilty" of existing. Simply we don't believe they exist. What we are not saying is that we believe in fact they cannot exist.
This is important because your question "what makes you believe no deity exists?" is not accurate. Atheists DON'T BELIEVE claims that they do exist. We are not claiming that they do not exist. However, if I were to say I BELIEVE god/s don't exist, I'd be making a claim that I would have to support.
Why this is important is because nobody can prove unicorns, dragons, flying spaghetti monsters, pixies, magic, and so on don't exist. All we can say is that there is no evidence that any of these things do exist and therefore I don't believe they exist.
Same for god/s, there is no good evidence, therefore I don't believe they exist.
So, I know some people like to call themselves agnostic because atheist has negative connotations with it and has been used a a slur. However, it doesn't tell you anything about a persons beliefs. Theism is the belief in god/s. Atheism is disbelief in god/s. Gnosticism is a claim of knowledge something. Agnosticism is a claim of not having knowledge of something.
I personally don't care what you want to call yourself, but there is a difference between having a belief and claiming knowledge. There are people that believe in god/s who claim to know it for a fact, and others who believe and claim not to know for a fact. Just like their are those who don't believe who claim to know for a fact, and those who claim not to know for a fact.
Gnostic Theists and Atheist, those who claim to know one way or the other, have to prove how they know. Agnostic Theists and Atheists, those who claim not to know one way or the other, don't have to prove anything.
I will say this though, claims of existence are by there very nature unfalsifiable. They can potentially be proven, but can never be disproven. Therefore, I say that the atheist position of disbelief until proven is the only logical position.

The author of this post states that "atheism is based more on belief." This is a common misconception about what the terms "agnostic" and "atheism" means. Agnosticism comes from the Greek root "gnosis" meaning knowledge and "a" meaning a lack there of. Therefore agnosticism is a lack of knowledge or lack of information to determine the existence of a god where as atheism is a lack of belief in a god. One can be an "agnostic atheist" (or someone who cannot confirm the existence of god due to lack of knowledge or information and also lacks a belief in god, or an "agnostic theist" (or someone who cannot confirm the existence of god due to lack of knowledge or information and also believes in god.) So agnosticism is not the "middle ground" that so many people identify it as.

Not certain I agree with you on this topic. I am atheist due to my knowledge of science and math. It is undeniable that the universe is greater than the earth god.

Human history. No god claim or revelation has appeared to multiple cultures. They all conform to the ideals and fancies of their origins. Religions funny enough evolve with the fortunes of their tribes. Fiery hell came after the Jews were conquered and was not wildly adopted. Rome adds new ideas and a new religion emerges as they realize the promises of their ascendancy are pretty impossible. Because people can be convinced to believe bad ideas and those echoing the ideas don’t have to be complicit in a lie to spread it. Because no objective way is attempted to show true from false claims. People are free to assert goddid anything from winning the ball game, finding your keys or punishing sinners with hurricanes. The emotional appeals and insistence that Undemonstrated ideas must’ve true is just a push to feel they are right.

You either have faith or you don't

I, and most atheists I know, don't say there absolutely is no god, just that there's no evidence for one and until the necessary evidence is provided there's no more reason to behave as tho there might be a god than to behave as if there might be any other supernatural thing. Which makes me an agnostic atheist but still very much an atheist.

It's pointless to talk about there being no evidence against a god existing since of course there isn't, it's only possible to provide evidence for positive claims, not negative ones. Just change "god" to "unicorn" to see how that works.

What I think would create a semantically situation is if we did get compelling evidence for the existence of a god so there could be no question of not believing, only the question of whether or not to worship. Would non-worshipers still be atheists, since we'd be without god for all practical purposes, even tho we accepted ones existence? And if not, what word would indication acceptance without worship?

I do not believe no deity exists.

I accept there is no proof of a deity.

It's a small, but important distinction.

I do not quibble between words like agnostic and atheist. We all know there is no evidence of gods. If you quibble between word meaning too much you might end up placing the burden of proof upon yourself. The best example of this is when you declare that there absolutely are no gods. I don't believe in any, but the believer will offer his Buybull and other nonsense as his proof. He might even have you looking at trees and birds. Maybe a sunset.

It's the word "belief" that I think needs to be addressed. We don't "believe" that nothing exists. I don't "believe" that no Santa, Easter Bunny, unicorns... exist. I simply take the null hypothesis.

We believe in things because we don't have evidence for them. I don't believe that the earth is round... I don't have to. I don't believe that water boils at roughly 212 degrees (depending on elevation), it just does. I don't "believe" I can fly or "believe" I can touch the sky. Simply because, if I spread my wings to fly away... I'd be dead.

So this isn't about belief. If someone asks me if I "believe" in the possibility of God, I would say "yes." I reasonably acknowledge that there is no evidence for a God, and assume for now that there is no God. But I also see something beyond me that I don't understand, and so I create "beliefs" about that... knowing that beliefs are present in the lack of evidence. IF evidence ever shows up to verify a god, then I'll no longer need to believe.

I used to think I was an agnostic. My only scenario for existence of a god was that there was a chance the laws of physics had been arbitrarily defined and we would have no way of finding out either way. I had a long conversation with the smartest, most centered philosopher I know about this, and hours later we agreed that if that was my definition, then I must be an atheist. In essence because otherwise the only definition of Atheism would be paradoxical: a firm arbitrary belief in the nonexistence of credible arbitrary beliefs.

For believers whats makes you think any diety does exist. Disregard any single point in the theist paradigm and the who paradigm falls apart

There has been nothing in 56 years of life that has lead me to believe in the existence of God. Truthfully, I find the idea unbelievable and the opposite of how The natural world is. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I find it funny how we read our children fairy tales explain how they’re not real, but we’re expected to believe that the fairytales of God Are real? And yes I say fairytales. They follow the same premise.

It has been said that if, right this very moment, ALL human knowledge ceased to exist, the Bible (or Koran or any religious text) would not be re-created with the same information. However, eventually, everything we now know about science would eventually be re-created.

An old book, « Le testament du curé Jean Meslier » should be read by all persons who are looking for reasons not to believe in God. This book is a powerful explanation of the reasons why nobody should believe in God or in any religion based on the belief in a god. Do a Google search and you will find where it can be downloaded. Also, Candide, by Voltaire is a novel that is worth reading if you are sceptical about religions and beliefs. You won'gt regret reading it!

Spinal cord injury-paralysis

I think for 99% God does not exists. If God of the Bible does exists then then he is not loving but a controller of what I shoud act,speak and think hi s way or it is hell for me. I sensing no love from being controlled.

I do think there is uncontrollable force beyond our understanding.

I'm an atheist because I reject the claim that a god or gods exist. I reject the idea based upon the absence of evidence to support the claim.

There is no need for proof of lack of anything existing. Just proof that it does exist. So far there has been no proof.
I follow that idea in everything. I don't have to make up an answer when there isn't one. I am usually quite alright with accepting that there isn't an answer to a question.
Theists seem to need to make up an answer, otherwise they can't relieve their fear of living without an answer.

Because nothing attributed to a god can not be attributed to chance, circumstance, or reason. So called miracles are not duplicatable, which would not be the case were there a puppet master who supposedly was creating them. I tell people who get in my face, flip a coin or pray, the result will be just as dependable. ?

There's a subtle difference between believing in no deity and not believing in any deity.
I do not have a belief in any deity as each time I've examined evidence for one I've found it lacking.

I may find logical inconsistencies with certain proposed deities, for example Epicuris phrased the problem of suffering as
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Yet in batting down these Gods with logic and reason, we find a moving target, theres always an evasion or edge case: limits to God's problematic omnipotence; mysterious ways and God's ineffable plan by which all this suffering is actually a good thing in ways we can't understand. So on and so forth. So I recognise that there can be no proof positive of there being no possible God whilst the definition of God is allowed to be so fluid as to evade concrete conclusions to be drawn regarding his or her nature. The Ignostic at this point draws a line under the question and ignores it as meaningless. "Come back with a definition of God" they say "and then maybe we can address the question." I'm sympathetic to the point of view but it's too late for me. The question has captivated my mind and I can't simply ignore it whilst the answers people live their lives under have such an impact on my life.

So we are left with a "God of the gaps" Wherever there is mystery there is a form of God to fit in the place of a useful answer. A God that can have little to commend it but nonetheless is vague and malleable enough to dodge any rational attack. But just I as don't believe in Bertand Russels teapot orbiting a distant planet in deep space or the invisible Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage when it comes to God I'm with Laplace "I have no need of that hypothesis"

I do not have a belief in God and so I'm an Atheist, I also do not have certain knowledge and so I'm an Agnostic. Contrary to common misconception, the two descriptions do have significant overlap.