Why are atheist...atheist?

[Faith No More]

Unicorns are completely different as the nature of unicorns is fully understood and clearly not prevalent in nature. The nature of God is not fully understand, therefore is no way of recognizing the existence of his prevalence.

That part in bold is why I am an atheist. Because I cannot recognize god, I have no belief in him. I just used unicorns as an example of why not believing in god is not a choice, but merely an observation.

Lol, no of course not, but thats precisely my point. If you did pick me, lets say 10x in a row are you to go against the odds and assume that it was just coincidence or are you going to assume that there was something in the experiment that creates a bias that makes me more likely to be picked. I didn't say the laws of physics were proof of God, I just said they made an unintelligent design very unlikely. In fact, too unlikely for me.

How do you go about defining the probability for the laws of physics? What are the chances the laws of physics could be different? You can't answer these but are not afraid to speculate on them.

...I choose to believe he exist merely from a probability point of view.

No, you didn't choose, you reached a conclusion based on your view of the probability. For it to be a choice, you would have had to weigh no evidence at all.

Atheist choose not believe because there isn't they anything they consider evidence for his existence, even though, at the same time, there is also no evidence against him and also the nature God is not fully understood therefore evidence would not even recognizable if were to exist.

Again, beliefs based on observations of evidence are not choice but conclusions. Do you choose to believe the sky is blue?

Yet still you will assert he doesn't exist, which is why say atheist reason for saying he doesn't exist is similar to religious people. How is this type if sufficient thinking profitable?

If I see no evidence for something it is rational for me to assert that I have no belief in something until I do see evidence. Atheism is not the assertion god does not exist, but merely the lack of a belief that a god does exist. Since you appear to not know whether god exists or not, you are actually an agnostic atheist.

And also no evidence against.

There is no evidence against bigfoot either yet I have no problems stating I don't believe in it either.

There is no evidence against any God be it Jehovah, Allah, or Brahman but it is unlikely for obvious reasons.

The evidence against them is their contradictory characteristics.

However, if you do not assert that God does not exist and are open to the possibility of his existence then what I was saying does not apply to you because you are really admitting that you do not know. I read the definition of atheist before I asked the question and it said an atheist was someone who denies the existence of God. So my question really geared more toward that kind of atheist.

Your definition of atheist is really the definition of 'strong atheist.' An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god.

If someone asked about my beliefs in the same way I wouldn't get mad or insulting at all. I'd just show them where they were wrong.

It is human nature to be upset when someone refers to your beliefs as ignorant. It makes you sound arrogant and condescending, not inquisitive.

The premise I set up in the question for the choice of atheist to deny the existence of God, again not you from what I've read, is inherently ignorant and I tell you why. I'm not insulting anyone it is just true. If the premise I set up is wrong than thats a different story. Thats why I explained my premise so thoroughly in the first place. So people can see where I'm coming from and tell me where my premise went wrong.

Your explanation was anything but thorough and your premise was wrong. Hopefully I have enlightened you as to what a person means when they say they are an atheist.

Smugness and superiority is just your imagination.

No, it is in your wording whether you intended it or not.