It isn't just that there's a lack of subjective, empirical or logical evidence. That is one facet of the problem, for sure. Just as important is that the supernatural being who is proposed would have to breach all the laws of nature that humankind has worked so hard to shed light on (using that mighty brain that this alleged being has supposedly endowed us with). I've typed that idea dozens of times on these threads and no believer has ever addressed it, not once. Equally, and I think this is really the crucial bit, God, as far as I can see, has been invented as someone whose existence explains the whole of "creation," the whole universe in all its beauty and complexity. The universe's complexities are hard enough to explain (except by believers, who insert God by default into anything that's hard to explain), but the supreme being must himself be far bigger and far more complex than the most complex things in the universe. In other words, we try to explain difficult things by inventing an infinitely more difficult and complex thing, who is not just difficult but impossible to explain, who breaks all the rules and for whom there is no evidence. I'm waiting for someone to tell me an example of any other sphere of human endeavour or thought where this approach would be considered sane and sensible. You know, we get slagged off by certain defensive believers who demonise atheism as the world's greatest evil, who say we can't be atheists at all, who pretend that atheism is some sort of religion or creed and who attempt to grade us into weird categories. Or even question our mental health, eh, Jacko? Tee hee! It would be very refreshing if, for once, they actually tried to address what it is we are saying about atheism instead of casting us as the devils incarnate.