I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or any other magical fantasy creatures -- they're simply not real. I don't even need empirical evidence to know that Humpty-Dumpty isn't real, he just isn't because reality, logic, and reason. There are no egg-beings just as there are no all-powerful magical super-beings in the sky.

That said, if anyone does come forth with truly compelling proof that, say, Santa Claus is real then I'll stipulate the possibility of god....and the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny too for that matter.

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 know I'm not answering your question but I would only like to agree with you. Michio Kaku had said something along the lines of what you state of how their is no evidence to prove or disprove God but rather more scientific evidence is needed to evaluate the creation of our universe and how it came to be.

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.

That's easy… no real proof.

Just little update on the courtroom analogy I posted before.

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

Hypothesis, thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The proper methodology. Atheism is based on scientific thinking, not on any kind of belief.

I think the question is set up incorrectly. I don't "believe" there are no gods. I simply lack belief and any gods. My atheism isn't an assertion but rather a rejection of the claim that others make. No belief required.

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

I am happy to be agnostic thanks to reason, and atheist by belief, and I do not find the two at odds. But it all depends how you define the words, and I am not interested if anyone else wants to redefine my words for me.

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.

Evolution has no place for a god. What would the purpose be except for the purpose man gives it. The evidence isn't to prove there isn't a god. The evidence is there to prove there is a god for whoever wants to believe in that sort of insanity. I'm not anybody with a label attached to me. I'm sane not insane.

So, agnostic by itself is a bit of a useless term for me. It says nothing of what you actually believe/are convinced of. For example, there are people who do and do not believe in a god or gods, yet understand they don't know for certain. So, under the general agnostic label, all these people with mutually exclusive beliefs would be in the same category... making it utterly useless. This gets especially tricky when you realize it is epistemologically impossible to prove a negative. So if you only use the agnostic label, then people would have to be agnostic on everything that has not yet been proven true. Once again, this does nothing to separate those who believe in said thing vs those who don't.

This is why I prefer the dual system and classify myself as an agnostic atheists. I don't believe there is a god or gods because I have not been convinced of such. Just like I do not believe in pixies, warlocks or fire breathing dragons for the same reason. I understand I don't have all the answers, but withhold belief until the burden of proof is met to my satisfaction

Simple common sense and lifelong observation of people and their need to belong to something. I think godd and religions are an inevitable result of intellect combined with that need.

Simply, since NO-ONE has ever, can ever show undeniable Proof Positive that ANY Supreme Deity/God has ever existed or exists except in the minds of those who choose to believe/think that it SHOULD ergo, " If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck then it must be, logically a Duck," so it goes for God/Gods and religion in my opinion.
Plus, after studying Theology and Comparative Modern Religions and gaining my ThD ( Doctorate in the same as an Atheist with an open mind) realising that all religions are merely conjectures and philosophies ( Theosophies is the term I prefer to apply to them) are utterly incapable of withstanding any examination/s using simple reasoning and logic and that they also follow the ages old formula of " When inventing/creating a Deity/Deities one must first remember to create such as being Invisible, Intangible, Unimpeachable, contain all of the traits of human kind, both good and bad, be controlling and demanding, dictatorial and assumedly kind, caring and benevolent as well as being miserly, tight-fisted and completely ambivalent and ambiguous."

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.

The Universe does operate under rules and fundamental laws.  What is their origin?

I'm a newly turned agnostic and triggered by the same thought as yours. I don't believe there is no god, I'll place my bets that there is one.

But since he made us as a creature of free will, think of it from this angle- the moment he chooses to reveal himself, the whole notion of free will becomes invalid. In order to keep the status "free", god must be a silent observer only. No interference, no contacts, no nothing.

This for me solves the dilemma rather peacefully. If God wanted to contact/instruct us, there are literally endless means (rather than the traditional bullshits we currently see in societies). At the same time, this also spares us from the stupid question of disproving God's existence.

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.

Show me the proof

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Great quesiton. Looking at all the responses there's a lot of common threads here. Where's the proof?

I don't believe he doesnt exist. there is just no evidence for his existence.

This is an excellent question. People who are dogmatic about saying there is No God are no different than a dogmatic fundamentalist Christian in my book. A good place to start a scientific search on what is really going on in this area is to take a look at a retired Australian lawyer named Victor Zammit who has written a book entitled "A Lawyer looks at Afterlife Evidence that is Admissable in a Courtroom." He has done a great job regarding this subject and I keep a copy of his book in my home to loan to folks who indicate an interest in looking further. Highly recommended.