Well, how is atheism defined generally? The lack of belief in a god. You either believe that one exists or you don't. How certain you are is irrelevant. You saying that you are agnostic only says that you are an atheist since you said yourself that is not enough evidence to prove that a god exists.

Best answer, of course, there is simply no proof. How anyone could possible accept the Bible as proof is beyond comprehension to me, yet there are people who believe the Bible is indeed an infallible source of truth straight from the Creator. I don't know how or why we are here, but I acknowledge clearly there is (or was at sometime) something far greater than mankind that set the wheels in motion that has allowed Earth to provide life to humans and other species of. But whatever that source is -- it clearly is not the God of the Bible.

There isn't any evidence that one exists. In the few cases where believers define the qualities of their god(s) that can be tested, their god(s) fail the test, eg. omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. You would also expect to see different things happen in a universe with an interacting deity than one without one, eg. believers spared in disasters, prayers answered, etc., so in this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Lack of evidence. Show me concrete proof and I will change my opinion.

I do not "believe." It is not one of my functions. There simply is no god. Anything that would claim to be a "god" - omnipotent and omniscient - would have to be under an eternity of scrutiny, question, and doubt; one absolute for another. Anything less than omni-whatever may very well be an alien or being from a contingent universe with better gear than me. "God" is essentially a word we came up with to describe beings with more power than us or power over us (namely, as a species). It's really just a semantics issue. There was another thread similar to this one. The answers are much the same. And the distinction between "believe" and "worship" is also noteworthy. If some guy came from the sky and said, "I'm a god." I would say, "Define yo terms, provide evidence, and then, what the fuck do you want?"

I have no more belief in a deity than in the Loch Ness monster or the tooth fairy or big foot, until sufficient evidence is shown I have no reason to believe or disbelieve, but after 6000 years or so one would expect some sort of evidence to exist, where as there is none (at least to my knowledge)

There is no proof a god exists, not only that but religions keep "stealing their ideas" and basing their bibles on previous religions. for example, virgin births, being killed and resurrecting, evil brothers.. I could go on but it gets tedious.
In India, Khrishna was born of a chaste virgin called Devaki.
Buddha was considered and believed by his followers to have been begotten of God and born of a virgin whose name was Maya.
The Siamese (Taiwan), had a God and saviour who was Virgin Born whom they called Codom.
Horus was known to all of ancient Egypt as having been born of the virgin Isis.
How about good and evil brothers like Romulus and Remus ( Cain and Abel)

It goes on an on, how can you believe in one because it makes sense, if all the others do not. same story different sheep.

Atheism is a position on belief, while agnosticism is a position on knowledge. They're not mutually exclusive. In fact, MOST Atheists consider themselves at least somewhat agnostic as well. I'm a bit of a rare case, in that I think gods are about as believable as unicorns and faeries, but I'm not 100% GNOSTIC that there are no such things. I put myself in more of the 99.9% range LOL But until I'm given proof, I can't BELIEVE in a god, which makes me an Atheist by default.

Lack of valid evidence.

Definition of deity

1 a :the rank or essential nature of a god ivinity
b capitalized :god
1, supreme being
2 :a god (see 1god 2) or goddess the deities of ancient Greece
3 ne exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
such established American deities as Daniel Boone, Kit Carson —J. D. Hart
the deities of the banking world

Not too keen on the challenging word Atheist. "Rationalist" may be a better description. There is no convincing evidence of creation or "intelligent design". Evidence has suggested neither a kind nor a cruel creator of anything. That seems to be the province of the naïve and ignorant.

I am strongly against BELIEF!

1. Science and innovation that has objectively explained many of the religious claims of miracles by use of theory, experiment and peer reviewed consensus.

2. There are hundreds of religions throughout the beginning of mankind. All were created to explain what the followers and leaders could not explain prior to enlightenment.

3. There have been at least 1,000 named deities recorded in history. Not one has come out over thousands of years of humanity to claim to be the one. On a side not, it's funny that current theists don't believe in the other 999 "Gods" and "Goddesses", yet the one they believe in is the one true one. They are literally on deity away from being atheist.

4. The main religions of the world have come to be so concurring lesser factions, and most notably by spilling blood. They didn't come about by some divine intervention.

5. Organized Religion these days is a money-making business, along with suppression of unwanted thoughts, and with a hard sprinkle of misogyny and disdain for opposing thoughts. Sure, many religious sects do charity work. Yeah, so do many non-profit organizations around the world without a dose of their theist thoughts.

6. GEOGRAPHY and INDOCTRINATION: The biggest tell-tale sign of no god. Why aren't children just born believers? Why must they be taught at an early age to believe in [insert religion]? Why are kids in the Bible Belt here in the U.S. Christians, and children in the Middle East predominantly Muslim?

No evidence, but not expecting someone to prove nothing doesn't exist. I've been dead and jump started back to the land of the living. Didn't meet any religious beings while I was gone.

Again, the assertion of the positive has the burden of proof.

atheism is based on not believing people about their God

What makes me not believe in a literal deity isn’t the absence of evidence to support it; it’s the presence of evidence that adequately explains why we are so nearly universally tempted to believe in spite of that absence. The evidence is well-presented and studies
cited in biologist John Wathey’s
“The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing”

[amazon.com]

My question at a early age was "which one",? Which church? From a very small town, at least five differant churches...I asked why, if there was only one god, how come so many differant churches. When I got older, found out different people had different gods, and near as I could tell they were all jealous, vicious, and murderous. Then one day I read that to be a good god follower, you had to have "faith". Near as I could find out that meant tossing out rational thought, and believing in something without any basis. I just never had enough imagination. Atheism is simple as occams razor.

Life itself .

Deja vous all over again. This comes up seemingly every day.

You ask as if the default position is there must be or is a god.

Since the beginning of time, what ever happens happens. What anyone believes is not reflected on what happens and never has been. If anyone can think of a provable example, I'm all ears. I can't even relate to what it means to believe in a god. So to speak of whether there is or isn't has no meaning or relevance.

I don't feel any need for a label or a definition of my lack of belief. It really is like Santa Claus. As a child the fairy tale made me happy, made me marvel, gave me something to hope for and look forward too. I was blissfully ignorant and content, and trusted what my parents told me. Occasionally the myth was used to control my behavior. Be a good girl, Santa Claus is watching! But it was expected that I would outgrow the belief, that I would piece together the impossibilities and become an adult who did not believe in Santa. Essentially, that is how my religious belief evaporated. In college, there were fewer people to reinforce the need for religion, more facts and knowledge to explain the world...poof! And to be honest, sometimes I miss the childhood feeling of wonder and comfort. But now it would be delusional to try to recapture the belief.

The agnostic vs atheist debate. I considered myself an agnostic for years and even have an old blog on a site where I was really angry because an atheist said agnostics were lazy. Infuriated me at the time. It irks me some when I see videos or comments saying "If you are an agnostic you are an atheist" Labels can be tricky.
theist refers to a god. Gnostic refers to knowledge.

I a agnostic because I have no knowledge of god.
I am atheist because I have no proof of god.

Why is my belief system (I have a very strong belief system) defined by not believing in a fantasy? I would rather be defined as not believing in the Wizard of Oz, another fantasy. I like the Wizard of Oz more than the different Gods of the western monotheistic religions. The Wizard would not condone stealing children from their parents crossing the Mexican - United States border. According to our Vice President, stealing children is condoned in some book called the Bible. Must be a horror story.

Belief is Evil. It gets in the way of Knowledge.

I DON'T "believe no deity exists". I an without a belief a deity exists until I see evidence of a deity, just like I am without a belief in leprechauns until I see one. Who knows, there might be a deity who refuses to show itself, but that seems highly unlikely.

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.