Complex debate requiring a simple answer then? Let me give it a crack, hm.
I don't believe in any 'God' portrayed by any major religion, however I don't discount the possibility of there being one. I know many intelligent people who classify themselves as atheists, as they're 'too well educated' to believe the scientific inadequacies of the Bible as fact. Atheism is a word of Greek origin, which I believe means 'no God' (or something along those lines). For those who've participated in debating in the past, you should know that an argument is won by the team that best articulates and argues their case, and not the team that better degrades the opposing argument. I find it funny then, that atheists expect to win theological debates by pointing out the flaws in religion, yet providing no evidence to there not being a God.
It means "no belief." Usually the atheistic debate is to point of flaws in the opposite argument, because there is no evidence for a god. When speaking metaphysically (as opposed to a political or scientific debate), you cannot prove that there is or isn't a god. You can merely point out which is more logical. And when someone's argument is full of fallacies, you certainly need to point them out. Atheists see it as, something doesn't exist until there is evidence that it does (Russell's teapot, with which you're surely familiar). If a theist comes in and claims that there is evidence for god, the atheist argument then is to show the opponent that there isn't - that their claims are fallacious. There is not much to prove or back up when one says "there is no god," and anything that can be brought to the argument has been (no evidence for a god, no reason to believe in god, etc.) - it's a simple argument that doesn't require paragraphs of detail to explain the logic behind it.
The truth is, we don't know enough about our universe to readily say we weren't created. Such beliefs not only go against religion, yet they go against science, and to argue that there is no God is not only ignorant but, in my opinion, entirely stupid.
Don't confuse agnostic atheism with gnostic atheism. The vast majority of atheists are agnostic.
PROTIP for people reading this topic:
Gnostism means knowledge. Theism means belief.
Agnostic means you don't know, atheist means you don't believe.
I do not KNOW there is no god, because I cannot prove either side, therefore I am agnostic. But I have no reason to BELIEVE there is a god, and so I do not, therefore I am atheist.
I do not assert that a god is impossible, but I assert that it is fallacious to believe in one without prior having evidence for said belief (reference: Russell's teapot).
EDIT:
H2O beat me to it. Cheers!
