Lazycow - I disagree with you, totally!
Atheism absolutely is not a statement of faith. There are several reasons for this.
I cannot prove a negative. It is philosophically impossible. The fact that I'm often asked to do this doesn't mean I have lost the argument - it just means I am being asked to do something philosophically impossible. It has no bearing on the argument - you might as well say I have lost the argument because I cannot float 6 inches above the ground.
Atheism is not a position arrived at without rational thought. It is arrived at through weighing the evidence. If contrary evidence were to be presented, I and other atheists I know would weight it up and, if necessary, change our position. This is what scientists do with hypothesis/experiment ALL THE TIME. It's just that nobody has, as yet, presented sufficient evidence.
There are two pairs of things people confuse when talking about God.
- Proof/evidence. Obviously you cannot "prove" a negative, so sensible atheists neither present nor demand proof. What we demand is evidence.
Analogy: You cannot prove there is no Loch Ness Monster - lack of sightings could merely prove that she is very good at hiding or is capable of making herself invisible. But you can weigh up the evidence for (some anecdotes some blurry photos and some shaky film) and the evidence against (a comprehensive, 500-probe sonar sweep of the loch done a few years ago which produced nothing). Of course that doesn't prove there is no Nessie - you cannot prove a negative. But it makes her existence as unlikely as you can reasonably show.
- Probability/likelihood. The question "Does God exist?" has two answers - yes or no. Some people argue that this is a 50/50 split, and can never be resolved one way or the other. But that's just mathematical probability - the answer would be the same if the question were "Does Thor exist?" or "Does the loch Ness Monster exist?" or "Does Wighjggygrkgkll exist?" The thing you need to look at is the likelihood - and God's existence can be demonstrated to be very, very unlikely.
Analogy: The World Cup. Each team has a 1/32 chance (probability) of winning. But Trinidad & Tobago (say) don't have the same likelihood of winning as Brazil. They have, I imagine, about a 200-1 likelihood, based on their team's previous form. Brazil have about a 2-1 likelihood. So Brazil are 100 times more likely to win the World Cup than T&T. You can bet on T&T winning if you like, but it's very, very unlikely.