Certainly. The following is all my own:

Firstly, let me say your assertion commits a basic fallacy:

The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses

Religious Propositions about the "supernatural" can be reduced the absurd, as I have shown:

On Negative Theology and its Linguistic Implications For the Coherency of Certain Theological Concepts

Religious propositions about the "soul" hence the afterlife can be reduced the absurd:

• Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Naturalism Refuted

On the Monoism of the Brain and the Mind and the Debunking of Dualistic Propositions

Religious propositions about the nature of their deity and the deadlock it creates can be reduced to the absurd:

The Paradox of the Cosmological Argument Version 2.0

My Central Thesis on The Conceptual Absurdity of the Theistic God

Certain literal empirical propositions of certain religions can be reduced to the absurd, such as creation, the timelines and events etc and such:

The Absurdity Of Creationist Cosmology

“Appears Designed Is A Contradiction in Terms”: The Fundamentals of Biological Evolution

Proteomics and It's Applications For Evolutionary Mechanisms

Religious propositions regarding Anthropicism can be reduced to the absurd:

Religion and False Anthropocentricism

Religious propositions about transcendantalism can be reduced to the absurd:

"Beyond Logic" and "Outside Logic" are Meaningless

  I am what I am , no proof required , this is god !  ... stop looking over "there", try science, it's godly ....   

You solicit reasons for a denouncement you never specify. What is it you're asking?

     Sapient, is a king and saviour.... Thanks ....  

I do believe that the forum quite clearly stated "no theists." That being so, I also don't find it beneficial for an Agnostic to walk into an Atheist thread and tell them that they're going about things the wrong way...So, yes, I am an Atheist. The reason why I don't list a few of my own, is because I am interested in responses, not agreements/debates...

What I am asking, is your reasons. Proof may have been the wrong word, but it moves towards a general goal.

I suppose an example IS needed: Some believe that the earth is only thousands of years old...

PROOF: Scientists can dig down into the earth, pull up a solid sample, and date it. As well as dating old Dinosaur bones, which have been buried for so long.

Reason: I choose to agree with the notion that the Earth is old beyond thousands of years...Mostly because of the Dinosaur thing.

I guess what I'm saying is, I have personally met MANY Atheists who denounce, but have no good reason. They claim there is nothing, but they don't have much to back themselves up with. I came to these forums looking for your backup, I guess. Testing the waters, maybe? Can one truly blame me?

And please, if you don't like my topic, just leave. Shitting on my shoes will only make me want to kick you. What you give is returned.

 Wrong answer, Ender. I will give you some solid advice here while you are becoming accustomed to the forum. We have seen a multitude of theists dressed in atheists' clothing.  The way they generally start their attack is by asking open-ended questions about atheism without giving their own opinions.  After a bit of discussion, they "spring" the fact that they are theists and think themselves clever for giving poor response to reasonable answers.

So, you may be an atheist through and through, but the other members here will be wary until they can tell your true motive.  So, there is nothing inherently wrong with your question.  You are just too new to receive open answers from us.

See?  Ok, please don't respond with some statement about shit and shoes or shit and shinola or anything like that.  Something else you will see as you are here longer is that this is one of the nicest posts I've ever done...ever. 

Ha. Paranoia is unbecoming. Not very welcoming for a fellow Atheist at all. I see that "innocent until proven guilty" isn't true here. That's fine, I'll put up with it for a while.

If it concerns you so much that I am curious about such a thing, and that I am a theist in disguise, then let me reassure you as best I can...

I find the entirety of "god" to be a reflection of HUMAN behavior and wants. Easiest example would be the idea of "I can do anything." Such a child-like notion. It's so easy for theists to grasp a new concept and say their god can do it too. Another easy example, for many religions, is wrath. If this being is so much higher in its way of thinking, why does it resort to being angry? Why need it to warn/punish people, when in fact it could just change it.

If a god is perfect, why does it create an imperfect world with imperfect beings. Such a task seems time wasting for a being that supposedly thinks higher than us.

If theists claim some things are wrong, but these things are advancements, so to speak, what's to say that the only fear is us becoming more than what we are currently. "Power" being a somewhat ambiguous, advancements in science could be considered steps forward in power. Power that "god" has. If "god" forbids these things, why are we even able to do them? So that he can blackmail us to "hell?" I don't believe so.

My last bit, for now, is the notion that every god(s) is/are dead. If "god" was so involved in the past, to the point where there were witnesses, supposedly, why are great acts and proclamations no longer made? Where is the last TRUE prophet found in recent times? Nowhere, because there is no word. And there are only people who don't believe other people could possibly be closer to god than them, so they must be crazy.(And, in some ways, some of them might be.)

So, again, all I ask is for people to list some of their better reasonings that may show better why Atheism makes sense more than religion. After all,  if we do nothing but denounce and provide no more reason than why people believe, how can we consider ourselves different?

I suppose you could say that I base my opinions of the Atheist population on the many people I have personally met/talked to online and in places like this. Also, from such things as articles and whatnot. I suppose my opinions are based more on secondary info, but what I was asking you to do was prove me wrong. Not to bicker with me.

Also, Nero, intimidation won't work. I won't take your crap just because I'm new and you're paranoid. That isn't my problem. If you're really so much better than me for having been around longer, and if you think you know so much more than me, then you shouldn't be distressed at all by the new guy mentioning shit in his post.

See Hamby? I told you being nice gets a fellow nowhere. Here is a case in point. Kindness, in this case, has been confused with weakness. I should have told this guy he's a turd sandwich and to play by the rules or fuck off.  Now, he just thinks the response is due to paranoia instead of being sick and fucking tired of dealing with shitheads who come on the fucking forum, don't read anything posted before, and start asking pedantic, dickweed questions. 

So, Ender, I am not afraid of what you might be.  I am just sick of trying to sift through the bullshit that "mysterious" types like you bring to the table.  I tried to be nice about it, but you decided that we had to take this route instead.  So, there you go.  Not only have I shit on your shoes, I shit in your hat and then twisted it round and round on your head.

Trust me. There are very, very good reasons why we keep the jury out on newcomers. It's not like there's some super secret ninja decoder ring we'll give out to theists by mistake. It's just that we get tired of the bullshit, and sometimes it seems like there are two or three new ones a week.

My last post wasn't flippant or dismissive. In the end, there is only one fundamental reason why atheism is more rational than theism. There is absolutely no empirical or valid philosophical evidence for any god, or anything supernatural.

Any discussion of why this is so could be considered an argument for atheism, but in the end, there are no arguments for atheism. There are only arguments against theism.

We could say that there is evidence against particular gods if we wanted to. For instance, the Christian god fails on several levels:

1) 'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial&#39 are broken concepts

2) "The Omnis" - The bible assertions of the christian god's omnipotence, omniscience

3) The "Fall" commits an internal contradiction

4) christians must steal from secular morality

5) "God" is an incoherent term

6) Biblical Contradictions

7) My Central Thesis on The Conceptual Absurdity of the Theistic God

The Absurdity Of Creationist Cosmology

This list could go on for days. Christianity is simply ridiculous. The concept of god, however, is impossible to disprove since it's never been coherently defined. How could we possibly argue against something when we don't even know what it is?

Keep your shirt on. Like I used to tell an ex girlfriend of mine, when you hear something and you feel like maybe it was meant to hurt, think of all the possible meanings it could have had. Take the best one. That's what I meant. That goes for almost everyone here. Feel free to ignore anyone who's being unnecessarily rude.

Oh, and Nero's a teddy bear. Ok, not really, but he's that way with everybody.

I fancy my way of talk far too much. I... fancy... my way of talk... far too much. Sorry, what? It's OK if English isn't your native language, but that's not really the issue here.

Thanks for the meaningless ad hominem.

I've answered this already, as have others. Either you simply misunderstand the concept of atheism, presenting it as a positive claim -- in which case you fail to meet your own criteria with your crappy reasons -- or you're not being honest.

LOL.

It's cool.  He's a kid.  I found him easy enough.  He doesn't appear to be a theist, judging from the rest of his internet activity.  He's just trying to figure out what to do with all the excess testosterone raging around his veins.

I'll try to be nicer next time.

(Nothing any of us wants to know, I AM GOD AS YOU. re: your wondering about what Nero thinks of the YouTube girl.)

To the OP, you really should rethink your whole approach here. It's been pointed out, so far with patience, that you're asking the wrong questions of the wrong people. There is no justification required for Atheism. Justification is required for the positive claim, theism. Atheism is merely a default position. Sure, there are good reasons to hold the position when certain god claims are thoroughly scrutinized, but reasons as such are not required beyond non-belief in that which has not been proved to exist or cannot be proved to exist. Theist claims are unfalsifiable; they have no evidence and by their very nature many of them can't possibly have evidence (in cases where the claims involve 'supernatural' and other such, literal, nonsense). When presented with something that cannot be proved empirically to exist any person is left with the option of believing it to exist without evidence (faith) and having a non-belief in its existence. In the same way that I don't believe in Santa Clause I also do not believe in any god claim. It's that simple.

Now, it's very important that you understand this very basic stuff before continuing on. That is, you must understand that there is no '... reason/evidence or proof...' required of an Atheist to support her position beyond simply not taking a god claim on faith. Reason/evidence and proof can only come into play when the god claim being not-believed in actually has some evidence for its existence. That being said, reason and proof can be offered in the case of some god claims. As I pointed out earlier if a god claim invokes the nonsense of the supernatural it is by the very nature of the claim self-contradictory and impossible. Supernatural things cannot exist. Therefor, a reason beyond the 'not-taking-a-claim-on faith-reason' of, for instance, the Christian god claim is that logically a god with the characteristics ascribed to the Christian god cannot exist. Clearly this sort of reasoning falls short when a pantheist god or certain deistic god claims are invoked as they are not described as supernatural, however, the claims are unsupported by evidence and there is no reason to believe in something merely because someone can imagine it and communicate it to you. To reiterate the point again, when a theist makes a god claim that does have evidence then and only then is the Atheist required to offer justification. Taking the default position of non-belief in that which has no evidence does not require that person to carry the burden of proof.

In short, no Atheist who 'denounces' a religion or god claim is going to offer any reason or evidence or proof. That would be epistemologically unjust. The people making the positive claim must first present evidence that their claim is justified, until then they're taking the claim on faith and that is reason enough to disbelieve anyone making that claim.

If you were to take it on faith that there really is an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my closet only because I'm writing here that there really is an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my closet and you can't prove otherwise (neither can I prove it is there, just trust me that it is), then I fail to see what the difference is for you regarding god claims. You don't need a reason or evidence to not believe in my Invisible Pink Unicorn (it really is real), you only need to know that it's unfalsifiable and that there's no evidence, nor will there ever be, that it exists. Should you live your life as though it does? What if I told you it happens to employ extremely advanced technology by the use of its horn that can manipulate the universe in a way similarly described of the god of the bible? Well, you still have no reason to believe me and I've still not given any proof, and I've even admitted that I can't. So, we're back at square one. I hope you see where this is going. It is a cycle that doesn't end. The claim is unjustified and unjustifiable, you just don't believe it, and you can offer no proof or evidence against it. The same goes for the god claim. The burden of proof is not on the Atheist, but the theist, for making the claim that requires proof in the first place. If you can't accept that, then you should examine what proof you have that fairies, elves or leprechauns don't exist and post it because I'd be very interested in having that proof. (Hint: You can't have proof of something not existing that doesn't exist. Yes, that's different than the formal logic employed against the very notion of the possibility of certain gods existing.)

Should I point out that Ender just "denounced" us in his "Denouncing:" thread... way to come full circle there.