Moot The Point

I’ve got to say, that other blog looks like a brilliant one.

As an atheist, I agree that we can not scientifically 100% DISPROVE the existance of god, just like we can not disprove 100% the existance of the tooth fairy, or santa, or the flying spaghetti monster, or tiny invisible elves living in refrigerators.
But when looking at the world around us, and the universe at large, we see that EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science, and there is no NEED for god.
Since by definition anything that could create the universe must be more complex than the universe the existance of this divine, supernatural, ultimately complex deity would be an extraordinary claim.
Atheists by and large are skeptical of all claims, and even more so with extraordinary claims. The saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” comes to mind here.

Since there is no need for a divinity to explain what we can see in the universe, and the claim of a deity is an extraordinary one, and there is no scientifically verifiable evidence of a deity, the skeptical, rational approach is to assume that there is no “god” until evidence comes to light to change that view.

While this does not “prove” atheism is correct, or that deism is “false”, it is how I and many other atheist look at the subject. It is also, in my view, the simplest explanation (and as I have mentioned before Occam’s Razor is an idea that I try to follow, since it generally leads down the right path).

I think this fits what you were looking for (not using negative views of the alternative to “prove” atheism, but giving an understanding of the atheist’s reasoning for their “belief” or lack there of.