Is there any evidence to support?

The latter.

Well yes. Basically all evidence, everywhere, supports the idea that "god(s) does not exist". All of them though, not just Yahweh which you imply by capitalizing the title. The atheist view has nothing to do with "denial" though. It has to do with evidence. If there was an all powerful, omniscient, loving, intimately involved in the affairs of humans, universe creator out there somewhere there should be SOME evidence that it exists. You know, something other than vague, irrational stories written down centuries ago by superstitious goatherders......... But there isn't.

I think it mainly boils down to this one fact. Sure, there *could* be a "god(s)", or at least something people would consider to be a god(s) out there somewhere. However, it is utterly ridiculous to assume that this "god(s)" would be anything like the childish, petty, narcissistic sociopath depicted in the majority of the world's religions, the Abrahamic ones in particular. Why would a universe creator be sitting up on a cloud somewhere infuriated that some teenager is beating off, or that two people of the same sex love one another? Get over yourselves.

Is there any evidence to support the claim, "The Great Green Arkleseizure does not exist"?

No, but who cares? You don't need evidence to reject an idea. You need evidence to accept it. That's what you do on every other subject besides god. For some reason, theists always want their god (and not any other gods, mind, only their preferred one) to be held to a different standard that everything else.

If we hold god to the same standard as we do Santa, Russel's Teapot and the little pixies with green ears, we should reject belief in god.

Your understanding of how evidence works is lacking.

As atheists we say religions do not provide us evidence of any god, when we combine this with history etc there is even more reason to see the religion is false.

We can then clearly say man made gods do not exist. And someone a few days ago pointed out the names of 4000 man made gods we KNOW do not exist.

I, in my opinion and from a non-non secular (yet no longer atheist) attitude have considered no data helping Christianity. I actual do not have any more something adversarial to Christianity, yet i have continuously were given the effect that technological expertise and modern discoveries basically about disprove Christian techniques, it extremely is why a lot of human beings do not trust anymore. i imagine this is the same with Islam, yet i'm no longer overly particular. i have by no skill heard of any data to help both of them. the in uncomplicated words faith that has medical data that i understand of is Hinduism. nicely, no longer precisely data, yet what I mean is that this is historic techniques experience modern medical theories. as an celebration, Hindus trust that ultimately the universe will end and then commence back, which, in accordance to the large crunch theory, could nicely be authentic.

There is no proof that God doesn't exist, nor is there proof that God does exist.

We don't have proof that we exist, who knows? Perhaps Jesus wasn't real and God is real.

Basically what I'm saying is that Atheists nor Christians nor *whatever* can make a full claim.

Satanists seem to make better sense of this, philosophy is their strength of course.

No. And that's okay. A God could exist. But there is no evidence for one, so why believe?

Atheists don't need to claim YOUR god doesn't exist.

That would be up to YOU to support the positive and/or initial claim that YOUR god DOES exist.

In order to answer that I would have to know the testable properties of your god, but theists never state any testable properties of their gods when they ask this question. I can only conclude that such gods have no testable properties, which, interestingly, is the one testable property of an imaginary god.

you assert that god exists - i ask you to prove it - When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

Yes, there is more proof that he does not exist than there is proof that he does exist.