I am not atheist because I think there are any answers in atheism. I am not atheist because atheism provides me with a deeper understanding of the world. I am not atheist because I don’t like your god or anybody else’s. I am not atheist because religion has not done anything beneficial for the world that could not have otherwise been done. I am not atheist because religious people, in general, annoy me. I am not atheist because holy books tend to be riddled with falsities and contradictions. I am not atheist because religious fundamentalists are dangerous and frightening people. I am not atheist because Catholic priests have gotten away with molesting children for decades. I am not atheist because religion degrades women. I am not atheist because I feel as though a cruel, jealous, murderous, vengeful god is not worthy of worship.
I am atheist because there is no evidence whatsoever that points to the existence of a god, and I will remain so until sufficient evidence is found.
Atheist Dave 
So A. Dave,
Do tell, what evidence would you accept as full and final proof for the existence of God? As a thought experiment have you considered how difficult it would be to prove that you exist? What evidence do you have of your existence by which you could prove to me that *you* exist? How do I know that you and this blog are not simply a figment of my imagination?
Truth be told? Nothing I can imagine would count as proof of any god’s existence. Anything I can think of could either be explained scientifically or discounted as an hallucination.
maybe you became an athesist because you believe that catholic, jehovah witnessess, seventh day adventist church is christianity…they are not christians.
A. Dave,
Astounding closed-mindedness don’t you think? You are the final arbiter of what is true? There are plenty of things that cannot be explained by an appeal to science or dismissed as arbitrary delusions.
Based on your worldview, I would be interested in your explanation of laws of logic that are universal, immaterial, abstract, invariants. Use science if you like, I think you will find that you position is philosophically untenable.