Random bit of comprehensible thinking (I hope):
Someone today said one thing atheists are always challenged with by believers is atheists cannot prove the none existence of God. This was not the first time i heard this. Yes, to say the same thing, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. In other words, because we cannot prove God does not exist, doesn't mean that we can come to the conclusion that he does not.
That is true but in my opinion:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Yes, BUT A CONSISTENT LACK OF EVIDENCE IS MORE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. So, to put things into a real life example:
I tell you there is a dead dog in the pond, we go take a look in the pond but do not see one. This does not prove that there was never a dog in the pond. So we empty the pond now, we still do not find it. This still does not prove there was never a dog in there, perhaps someone moved it when we were unaware but, this is more evidence towards there never having been a dog in there.
Back to the point of God. For hundreds of years we have had no evidence for the presence of God and thus for me, this is evidence of the absence of God.
P.S i say hundreds not thousands because i refuse to concede anything pre-1500 CE (AD) as evidence of miracles as before that we blamed things like rain or lack of it on the Gods moods. Even 1500 CE is still a bit early but hey...