The word atheism does not have a broad enough scope to encompass my belief and I will not be pidgin holed as atheist or anything else. Atheism states that the atheist believes that no god exists.<quoted text> that was to the clown person. I do not think you should claim that an atheist has proven that there is no God, or that the christian God does not exist? You give too much away. Why take the burden of proof when it is not necessary? It is the believer in any God who says he knows and has proof and evidence, who has to provide the proof.
If a person claims to know from experience, and does not claim to need proof, even that is sufficient. You still do not have to provide evidence for non-belief. You disbelieve from experience! Give him back what he hands out! If his experience of God is a sufficient substitute for proof, then your non-experience of God is sufficient substitute for proof, for you.
If you do not claim to know, and merely disbelieve. There is no rational argument against you, as long as you do not assume the burden of proof. That is why agnostic atheism is a comfortable attitude, with the opportunity to challenge other views, and no obligation to prove anything.
I know that no god exists with the same hard certainty that a religious person knows one does exists. The difference being that the weight of physical and psychological evidence is in my favour and E=MC^2 gives me mathematical proof that the god depicted in KJV revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe.
What I treat as evidence needs to be factual and E=MC^2 is factual, it has never been proven to be wrong, even with the recent neutrino experiments at CERN. I did not write the babble and I did not write E=MC^2, I just follow them to their logical conclusions.
If someone claims on a public thread that a god exists then they should be able to provide evidence for that claim as I can and do provide evidence for my claim.