There’s a difference between not believing in God and believing there is no God.
It sounds like word games, but it matters.
Not believing in God is like not believing in unicorns. You’ve heard the claims. You’ve seen no convincing evidence. So you don’t believe. You’re not making a positive claim about reality. You’re just not convinced by the arguments you’ve heard.
Believing there is no God is different. That’s a positive claim about what exists. You’re saying: “I’ve examined the universe and determined that no gods exist anywhere in it.”
The first position requires no evidence. The second does.
I fall into the first camp. I find the arguments for God unconvincing. The problem of evil. The lack of clear evidence. The way religious beliefs track so closely with geography and upbringing.
But do I know there’s no God? No. How could I? I haven’t searched the universe.
This distinction annoys some people. They want everyone to pick a side. Either you believe or you don’t.
But “I don’t know, and neither do you” is a perfectly reasonable position. Maybe even the most honest one.
The universe is stranger than we imagine. I’m comfortable saying I don’t have enough information to make definitive claims about its deepest nature.
That doesn’t make me wishy-washy. It makes me careful.