Rather than go on about all that, about not proving negatives, and other things that don't go anywhere, I prefer here to go more directly to the heart of the matter, to pinpoint exactly what the difference between an atheist and anyone else might be. My approach should clear up some considerable confusion. It might actually get us somewhere.
Let's begin by focusing on one particular, concrete point. Does God intervene in the material world presently? Specifically does God, for example, fill your car's tank with gas from the sky above when you failed to prepare for some trip?
I suspect many lately would consider someone who thinks God wouldn't likely do that, intervene in the material world, are atheists. That is not a good definition. Why?
I, speaking only for myself here, believe God would not likely do that, and I am definitely not an atheist. Many people I grew up with believe as I do and they aren't atheists. There is much more to this explanation, but we'll return to it later.
First let's consider a second simple point. Does God intervene in immaterial ways? If for example we consider dreams to be immaterial, does God intervene through dreams? And insofar as illness or the involved systems might be connected to or accessible by the consciousness, can God cure illnesses through that "immaterial" means?
Although I personally, again speaking only for myself, very much believe God can and does intervene quite often that way, I think it is important to understand that even if you do not, it doesn't make you an atheist. Quite many profoundly and deeply religious people that I also grew up with do not belief God presently does intervene through immaterial means in our Earthly lives. I don't count them as atheists, nor would I count you atheist, not on that point anyway.
If people who doubt God presently intervenes materially, and people who doubt God presently intervenes immaterially, are not atheists then who is?
Those two means of divine intervention are actually a small, some might say insignificant, part of most organized religions. The larger part of most organized religions concerns a systematic approach to right and wrong, like the Ten commandments, the afterlife, the meaning and purpose of life, and sensible directions to take in life.
Suppose that we could for example raise the dead by snapping our fingers. Why would we need a commandment against killing? Suppose we could snap our fingers and produce houses and food enough for as many as we want. What would be the sense of a commandment against adultery? Of course there could be reasons for commandments in those situations, but it is rather difficult to see them. So it is that most religions do not expect frequent interventions by God materially or immaterially.
Earlier I was trying to make the point that simply because you doubt God intervenes materially or immaterially, that doesn't make you an atheist. Perhaps it is clear now why.
Religion gives people much more than magic tricks. It provides a systematic approach to complex life and death issues. It provides traditions that expedite the progress of the individual through life. It provides some answers, if not all, to life's many questions. Those sets of answers have been tested by time.
It can be amusing watching people who considered themselves "atheists" trying to write a set of commandments or any systematic approach to problems of a moral nature. After many sessions on the topic we hear news from Roanoke, Virginia about a judge who suggested a set of commandments that don't mention God.
But I had already addressed that issue in several articles including on Examiner.com. The mention of God is necessary in order to deal with the problems of "objectification of authority." Why did the Ten Commandments last through the centuries but the code of Hammurabi did not, even with the survival of the stone on which it was carved? Because when Hammurabi died so did following of his specific code. The believers in the commandments "packaged" their laws in a way that survived objects of authority. Other systems around the world deal with the objectification of authority in various ways. Successful systems avoid profane tampering in one way or another. While it works to preserve the systems it also presents a problem to the pedestrian level of thought typical of atheists and persons outside the rich traditions of the various cultures. Perhaps we should require teaching all this in schools.
Having established that most religions downplay God's interventions in the present world, what happens to the evidence of an intelligent designer?
Many religious people balk. I suspect the failure to recognize Intelligent Design so far has much to do with that balking.
It need not be so. Seeing that some intelligent designer did intervene at least once in the distant past puts people in their place as people. Otherwise they tend to act like gods, which is bad, and perhaps surprisingly not necessary. Careful examination of the Ten Commandments and similar philosophical and ethical systems around the world reveal a "minimization of coercion" that naturally prevails where there are no human overlords.