Still regurgitating this lie, despite your being educated by several here why this is a lie?
Once again, atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. That is IT.
Furthermore, I’m on public record here (as you would have learned, if you had exercised even a basic level of diligence) of explaining in detail why your assertion is a bare faced lie. Since you couldn’t be bothered to exercise said diligence, I’ll repeat what I’ve previously stated on the matter, so that you’re left in no doubt about how this issue is treated rigorously.
Item one: no one who treats this issue seriously, asserts that a god type entity in its most general form, does not exist. Instead, we recognise that this is an unanswered question. Not least, because if a proper, rigorous answer had been found in the past, said answer would now be part of our mainstream body of knowledge, and no one would be arguing about this.
Item two: however, we can, and with confidence, dismiss as candidates for the “god role”, the assorted cartoon magic entites asserted to exist in various pre-scientific mythologies. We can do this because said magic entites are asserted to possess contradictory and absurd properties. Such entities can be dismissed on that basis alone.
This does not exclude “god candidates” that are of non-mythological origin, that are either consistent with known physics, or provide consistent extensions to known physics.
But, until evidence for such an entity materialises, we may safely operate on a provisional basis, as if such an entity does not exist, while remaining willing to revise our position if relevant data informs us that doing so is necessary .
Furthermore, that evidence, if it ever arrives, will falsify all of our ridiculous pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke.
It remains to point out pertinent facts before moving on - first, “my favourite mythology says so” isn’t “evidence” for a god of any sort, let alone the sort of ridiculous cartoon magic entities blindly asserted within said mythologies to exist; instead, this is evidence solely for the propensity of the authors of the mythologies in question to engage in wild and fanciful fabrication.
Second, ex recto apologetic fabrications of a sort that an astute child would point and laugh at, aren’t “evidence” for a god either - they’re evidence for the desperation and dishonesty of the pedlars of said apologetics.
That’s the essential difference between us and the mythology fanboys - we are prepared to change our minds the moment we’re presented with proper data, while mythology fanboys repeatedly demonstrate here and elsewhere, that no amount of data falsifying the assertions of their favourite mythologies will have the slightest effect upon them.
Item three: apparently you are unaware of what would happen, if genuine evidence for a genuinely existing god type entity were ever presented. The following would be the case:
[1] The evidence in question would be headline news around the world for months, and would practically be the only topic of public debate for the duration;
[2] The world’s most prestigious scientific journals would be fighting among themselves to be the first to publish the data;
[3] Whoever alighted upon said evidence would be guaranteed a Nobel Prize.
That none of the above has happened, should be telling you something important.
Now I strongly suggest that you learn from the above exposition. Your failure to do so will simply reinforce suspicions about your mendacity.