Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[FallentoReason]

Secondly I'd like to say that we have digressed and that my original point seems to have been missed. My point was that it was unfair to dismiss the possibility that God/Gods exist due to a lack of evidence. After all I have no 'evidence' that any of you exist yet I still believe that you do. So my argument is in support of agnosticism, that it is unwise to dismiss the possibility that God exists.

I believe the evidence we have for God(s), i.e. holy books, don't lead me from claim A to its proof B.

With Christianity, the evidence for God is obviously God himself i.e. Jesus the Christ. This gives us something tangible to work with except, long story short, the Biblical Jesus can't be found anywhere in history. The Gospels claim to have heard about a Jesus, but no anonymous author ever claims to have met him. Take Matthew 9:9 for example. It clearly shows that Matthew didn't write his Gospel because otherwise he would be speaking in 3rd person, which seems rather strange.

I'm sure most of you agree that 'hard' atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion. To claim you are 100% certain something doesn't exist when you have such limited knowledge of the universe is illogical.

All I can say is I'm certain the Biblical God can't exist based on the history this god supposedly left behind.. Indirectly.. Through word of mouth.. By people 40 years after the alleged events.. Which sounds rather familiar to Hercules, Son of Jupiter, who was given birth by his virgin mother Alcmena.