Everyone is born agnostic. There's a reason that religious indoctrination begins before children can read or have the capacity to ask relevant questions. I was brought up in a non-religious environment. It just wasn't an issue.

I don't believe because I was never instructed to.

I consider myself lucky that I didn't have to go through all that and fight my way out the other side, alienating friends and family in the process.

The evidence suggests that man created god rather than god created man. It looks like a made up character like Superman etc. I don't believe in a god for the same reasons I don't believe in Superman. Am I being unreasonable in my disbelief in Superman?

For me it comes down to the question of what is a reasonable belief.. Why one thing warrants more credibilty than another, The answer lies in the mathematical law of probability based on the scientfic method, the search for empirical evidence which pretty much eliminares blind faith, It's just that simple.

For the same reasons I don't believe Bigfoot, mermaids, leprechauns, unicorns, or dragons exist. There's no evidence that they do. That's plenty of evidence for me not to believe something exists.

I like to say that I have exactly as much confidence that there is no god as I do that fairies don't exist. Could I defend the position that I absolutely know gods don't exist? No. But there is zero evidence of the supernatural, and the evidence we would expect to find is missing too. I am therefore reasonably confident that there is no god.

Atheism is as much an anti-belief as it is a belief ie; regardless of hardship I refuse to believe in the wizard in the sky. Same as Christian or Agnostic belief requiring that regardles of situation God has fortold it. It all comes down to if you believe in wizards in the sky or in your own ability.

For me, so much depends on the meaning of words. I'm 100% certain there's no Biblical God, but a pantheistic deity is plausible.

We, as atheists, don't need to provide evidence for the non-existence of gods. Those who claim gods exist have to provide the evidence. Some else has said that little green men on Mars have been proven not to exist. This is not true. All that can be said is that there is no evidence that they do exist.

I’m going to give you the story I give everyone, you think that God woke up 1 day and was like shit I need something to look at I’ll make the heavens and the earth. Then a few days passes and he is walking around and is like shit I need something to watch and God being as narcissistic as he is makes man in his own image, and says this guy right here is going to make me laugh to years.

"what makes you believe no deity exists?"
This is a poorly framed question based upon a misunderstanding of Atheism and an assumption that disbelief is needed.

God is a fantastic claim. A supernatural being, we cannot see, touch or test for in any way, nonetheless controls the very universe.

When someone, anyone makes a fantastic claim, it is upon the claimant to provide proof of that claim.

An argument is not Proof.
It is not evidence either, it is a rational argument.

See if you can follow along.
YOU say "Hey Dave, I got a new car."
"What did you get?"
"A Lamborghini."
"WHAT!? BS, your full of shit! Where is it?"

NOW, if it is parked outside or at your home and you roar up in the beast, then I eat Crow.
"Damn. I did not believe you. I apologize. Can I have a ride?"

You have now "proven" your Lamborghini (A fantastic claim for most folks)

It is not possible for you to do the same with your God idea, because it is a supernatural idea and we live in a natural world.

So, the impetus will always be the claimant to prove an impossibility.
Were anyone to somehow prove the supernatural it would instantly cease to be supernatural and become just another natural thing, an unknown now known, an anomaly solved. Not magic, not Zeus hurling thunderbolts, just a thunderstorm caused by pressure and heat and moisture.

It is not necessary for me to disbelieve in God, that would require a PROVEN God, which I then refused to actively believe in.
Because people of faith are convinced by the emotive argument of the tales they see that AS evidence, as proof, as God being Proven, and hence we are wretched unbelievers for refusing to see what is right in front of our eyes.
While we point and laugh and say "The Emperor has no clothes!"

No dis-belief is required.

Rather we are unconvinced.

Atheism is a loaded word. I prefer atheist to agnostic because it simply means "without god," not, no god could ever exist. I don't care enough to say god is definitively nonexistent because I simply don't know - not 100% at least. I live my life as if there is no god because it seems to give every day more purpose.

When I got my necktie caught in A typewriter. ---Woody Allen

I more of an "Apatheist" (meaning I don't care to believe in a deity as so far in my life one or more have not made themselves known to me, so screw it!).

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.