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.

Seriously ?
This is not the place for you.
The human species has been coerced by greed.
When war & death are deemed necessary because of alleged violations of civil rights or oil or pharmaceutical interests or mineral resources and no religious interests put a stop to it... they're part of the problem.
It's a clear connection between business, religion and war.
Your just part of the problem if you want to present religious beliefs as anything but despicable.

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.

The structure of the question is wrong tho. The real question would be: What makes you believe a deity exists? Because people naturally doesn't believe things don't about, so by default we all don't believe in anything until we are told something.

Lack of valid evidence.

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)

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?"

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".

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.

I believe that no God exists because of the Bible with all of its absurdities and condemnations to death of so many people : babies (1st born of Egypt); the Flood (all life on earth except a few) ; cities burned to the ground; LGBTQ persons; etc.

Lack of evidence and since I was tried to be brainwashed by the Christian bible, there is no way that God exist! He's petty and just ridiculous.

It's more about there isn't anything that naturally compels me to think there is a god, from a rational standpoint. People get caught up with saying, "Oh well, you can't prove there isn't a god, therefore one might exist." That argument is irrelevant in that since it's impossible to prove there is a god, I don't have to go out of my way to prove there isn't one. The burden of proof is upon the believer since the idea of a god is something you came up with on your own. Instead of coming up with reasons why there isn't or can't be one, I don't have to waste my time on that because at the end of the day if you are making the claim that there is a god I don't have to do anything on my part to disprove that because there is no way you will ever be able to present any evidence that there is one. Simple. Believing in god isn't a natural or organic revelation that just spontaneously occurs among people, it is taught, handed down, from early childhood before the individual even has a chance to construct their own logical, rational conclusions.

The burden of proof for the existence of God is on the person making the claim that there is a God. The answers supporting the assertion that God exists are often illogical, incomprehensible, and sometimes ad hominem attacks on people doubting the claim. I have seen debates on the internet of various people who claim that God exists. They do not meet the burden of proof. For example, William Lane Craig frequently trots out arguments that have been debunked hundreds of years in the past. Frequently also his arguments have logical flaws . It shows his dishonesty because many of his arguments have been debunked long ago and he only brings them out because he believes that the person debating him is unaware of that fact. As someone with a doctor's degree, he should have known that those arguments have been debunked and does not use them in any kind of debate.

Because the burden of proof that there is a God has not been met, it is safe to ignore that proposition in all normal circumstances. Therefore, the existence of God is irrelevant to ordinary conduct of life. Because it is irrelevant, I do not have to believe that God exists, and therefore I can conduct my life as if he does not. Of course, if sufficient proof or evidence comes to light that there is a God, then I will change my mind, and the person who comes up with such proof will receive the Nobel Prize.

Making the statement that there is no God has the burden of proof of such lack of the existence of God. The only way to prove a negative statement is in mathematics, which solves a problem by finding a closed system in which the statement can be discussed positively or negatively. For example, you can prove that it is impossible to trisect an angle using a straightedge and a compass. We can find a system in which that problem can be stated. In that system, we can show that it is not possible to construct a figure that trisects an angle for some angles, and we can say that that the general statement is false. There is no closed system in which the statement that God exists can be examined. There is no closed system in which the statement that God does not exist can be examined. To say that God does not exist has a burden of proof that is impossible to overcome.

There is no proof for the existence of god and the whole concept is silly.

I think it's a slight play on words here - but it's not that I believe that no deity exists - I don't believe a deity exists. I know - but it means 2 different things to me. But I guess it's because I believe "gods" once had a purpose and that was to explain things we don't understand. Every culture had one or more and every one was there to explain why... why day and night, why birth, why tides, why weather. We don't need them anymore.

I think that the universe is vast, and it is not unlikely that there is intelligent life (a.k.a. 'aliens' out there, and that thousands of years ago, those 'aliens' could have visited earth. The 'aliens' might have created the myths and legends which our ancestors transformed into religion. The various 'miracles' recorded in the bible and contemporary works - writing on walls, walking on water, virgin birth, turning water into wine, blind men seeing, crippled men walking, burning bushes, voices from nowhere, dead people coming alive again - could be replicated today (or soon) by any competent stunt-man, musician, surgeon or scientist. So I agree with you in a way, I think there were 'higher powers' as you say, but maybe they were not 'gods', visitors maybe...

The question is stupid. Are you?

There is absolutely no physical or emperical evidence of a god, I am a man ruled by logic and logic has no room for a magic man in the sky.

I’m an atheist because I don’t believe that anything supernatural exists. I was raised a Christian and was very religiously active in my teens, but I was also very curious and love to read. I’m also highly logical. I started out looking to support my religious beliefs and found they were consistently unsupported by evidence and logic. One day I just got to the point where I had to admit I just didn’t believe any of it was true. I went through an agnostic phase first, but I’ve been atheist for at least 10 years and it feels honest. As a side note, I’d encourage agnostics to read about probability. I think there’s often acceptance of the possibility of gods as meaning that their existence is likely enough for us to take seriously. The same goes for isolated examples of the “unexplained.” But to each her own.

Oh, and regarding the main question (this is my answer to a post about an article that asks if atheism would end if scientific proof of god would be discovered): Of course, irrefutable proof of the existence of god would end atheism. The real scientist should always accept the results of a solid scientific methodology, even if it goes against his or her opinions or beliefs; indeed it should change his or her beliefs. But, think about it. If we had such proof, we would know where god is and how to communicate with it. We could ask questions about all the contradictions of this world and god would have to answer them. It would no longer be possible to use that ridiculously empty notion that “god acts in misterious ways”. And then, what answers could those be? Think about it... god does not exists.

If there really was a god or deity, why is the world in such fucked up mess?

That is not difficult for me to answer. I don't believe anymore that a deity exists because I see absolutely no proof. Do you see proof for... unicorns? Santa Claus. Multiple headed monsters? fairies? The list goes on.

There is literally more evidence that we are being visited by aliens than gods.

What makes you believe no werewolves exist?

You can't provide any empirical evidence to prove the non-existence of something, as that isn't how science works, yet no one actually believes that shape-shifting lycanthropes inhabit our world. Why do you think that is? Do you think you could conclusively state that werewolves don't exist, and if so, why does that not apply to things such as gods?

Because nobody has presented any real evidence of a deity.