Why are atheist...atheist?

[Captain Scarlet]

Sorry to be picky,but no,it does not,unless there have been new discoveries in the last few days I haven't heard about.

No pickiness assumed Padraic. I did use the word evidence quite deliberately. My point is this, is that there is no evidence for supernatural phenomena, despite research and even if there were it would cease to be supernatural. Thus we are safe in assuming the supernatural does not exist, from an evidential standpoint. From the perspective of reason alone it cannot be dismissed, but any such attempts to reason to the supernatural are holed below the waterline with fallacies

That is why I and every atheist I know asserts "I do not believe in God(s) due to lack of credible evidence"

This isn't the case. You are right to assume that this is a common perspective and that hard atheism attracts a burden of proof. But that doesn't mean that it is not a position that can't be adopted and argued for, nor that it is not more probable than theism. The weakness of agnostic atheism (whilst perfectly coherent) is that you would also be an agnostic aunicornist, an agnostic aelvisliviesist if you were being consistent. Why give theism special treatment when we dismiss unicorns and Elvis living (even though we can dig up his body his spirit lives on etc). All of these things should be accorded the same reverence ie none at all. I would be happy to concede that the hard atheist is not able to knock down theism, but I think it can win the argument on the grounds of probability, and in our universe that is often the best you can do. Hard atheism is not an argument from incredulity, it can imagine the supernatural but cannot affirm it, and further asserts that wrt it's claims the absence of evidence is indeed in this case evidence of absence, partly because of the way the supernatural is defined. Any evidence for it would immediately make it natural and thus subject to physical laws etc. The supernatural then is logically incoherent and evidentially bereft and therefore does not exist.

There is no credible evidence one way or the other.

There is no credible anything wrt to the positive claim that the supernatural exists. Yet there is credible evidence that the world is natural and material. What if we found evidence of the supernatural? Does that mean it is no longer supernatural? In my view yes it would.

I'm with Dawkins,my disbelief 6.9 out of 7. I am unable to assert certainty.

Dan Barker has a nice view on this. He is a hard atheist wrt all supernatural phenomona he has had chance to investigate and research for himself and an agnostic atheist wrt those he hasn't.