All religions have a creation story. Evolution makes a nonsence of creation. Deities existence is built on the premise that these creation stories are true.

As for the higher power. Well maybe one day science will be able to explain that to.

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]

From the perspective of the believer that realizes that theism doesn't make sense, agnosticism makes sense. If I've been told that there is a god, it makes sense that I should disprove it.

But if I take a more rational stance that starts from nothing and someone makes a claim that there is a god, that is a claim that needs evidence. A book cannot prove that something exists just because it says so. If that were true there are fairies, unicorns, Harry Potter and Middle Earth is a place. Empirical evidence is needed.

An atheist does not have to deny that no gods could ever exist. They can simply say that they are certain that no god exists because there is no proof. Zero. Nada. Zip. And they are confident there never will be any proof.

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.

There is no evidence either way, so therefore ideas of gods are simply made up. They keep making up more all the time and I've seen great changes in my lifetime. They have reason to fear because the Internet is going to lead to the death of god. Apologists know this and they are making up false sites. OK, there is still no evidence.

Life itself .

    Same here. You're not going to get proof either way, because no one really knows. On the other hand; can a supercomputer with AI ever become aware of itself and who it depends on for its existence? Can a two dimensional object ever observe a three dimensional object? Can a three dim object observe a four?  Thus I'm agnostic; I don't know, don't pretend to know, and not even sure I want to know.  if there is a maker that I'm unaware of or a dimension that I cannot see and there is no obvious micromanagement then I say......What difference, at this point, does  it  make ?

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 keep finding this post popping up- You aren't making any sense to me at all.

Non belief is non belief so; not interesting - not a subject for comment - not anything - The clue is in the 'non'

I don't think what you think - for me 'no god' is 'no god' end of don't care if you call me atheist agnostic too late for my dinner I don't have a god - end of.

If you cannot measure it, it does not exist. You would be right to think that is a little simplistic, because obviously there are things that exist that are measurable and we just do not know how to measure them yet. There are also things that we can measure now that we did not know how to measure 100 years ago. However, the phrase is still a solid rule of thumb when trying to determine the difference between reality, perception, and belief. The key point is that simply believing in something does not make it real. Nor does the majority of people agreeing that something is true make it so. For a thing to be true and / or real there must be observable, repeatable, and measurable data. Without that... it is just an idea you had.

Wrong terminology. Belief is accepting on faith something that cannot be proven. Since no one has been able to prove that a god exists atheist do not believe in god. It is not a matter of believing no god exists but simply saying "show me the proof".

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.

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

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.

I believe that no deity exists for the exact same reason that you believe that Santa Claus does not exist.

So... what makes you believe that Santa Claus does not exist?

Born into a household that was atheist, so I didn't have to lose religion like many. Religion and faith just never stuck either.

Name one incident in the known history of the world that a god or "god" intervened in the affairs of humankind and cite your proof!!!

I feel that god or higher powers began when there was no explanation available. Now that we know more, I think we have outgrown gods.

I would say you're asking the wrong question. I don't have a belief that there is no god. I have no belief that there is a god. It's not a belief, but the absence of belief. The difference might be too subtle for some, but it's there.

The onus of proof lies with the person who is making moronic assertions. Why should it be up to science to prove the non existence of a God, which by definition can not be proven to exist or not?
Does science have any need to prove that Venus is NOT being orbited by an enormous teapot? If we did, then the idiots would simply redefine the concept of a teapot in order to back up their stupidly.
Even the question of whether there is a god, assumes that people are stupid. That is, after all, the reason that god was invented.

Atheism is not based on belief, but a lack of belief. There is no evidence to conclude that there are such things as deities, angels, demons, or spirits. The onus is on the believer to prove their deities exist. Atheism is not a belief system. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is fine, but unless you can prove it exists, it is just an amusing idea.

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.

Just because there is no proof of a god does not mean that their is no proof that we were created! The fact that we exist is actually proof that humanity had a beginning. We may have been created by aliens or another form of species that mated with monkeys. I think that evolution has actually been dis-proven quite well. I also believe the fictional story of creation through Adam believed by many religions has been completely dis-proven. Everything has a beginning, as does the human race! So, what is a higher power? A more advanced civilization from far away? Maybe a spirit like LOVE that regenerates itself through humanity? Atheism does not believe in a god, but everyones definition of god is different. If god is nothing more then the one who controls your life or makes your decisions for you then we become our own gods when we follow ourselves. If god is anything that you worship then their are many gods and we change them in everything and every action we do. I myself prefer to be called an atheist because I reject the idea of anyone making decisions for me except myself, therefore I am guilty of calling myself god because I make my own decisions and admit when I am wrong instead of blaming Satan for tempting me into sins.

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

Why should I even give the claim that there is a deity any credence? There is zero physical evidence of any of them being real, yet they all have "eyewitness" accounts to vouch for them - despite pretty much all of them being mutually exclusive.

The fact that priests are child molesters at at least the same rate (or more) as the general population seems to point to the complete lack of those deities ability to do anything in the physical world. The rate that people seem to commit atrocities in the name of their god without being struck by lightning bolts suggests that either said deities are ok with that kind of behavior, or that they don't exist enough to be offended by it.