Please don't get offended by this, but this is bullshit, and your non-reason is bullshit.
You cannot say you have no reason to reject God, while demanding theists provide reasons why they accept God. I have a reason to reject other gods, and that reason being that the God I choose to worship gives what I precieve as evidence for his existence and is backed by more convincing history.
You have no reason, because there is no reason.
You normally present sounds reasoning, but this run-of-the-mill, atheistic bullshit, question-dodging, unicorn analogies were never convincing, nor are they acceptable arguments for those who would like to be convinced that your rejection of a Creator is backed by sound, convincing reasoning.
So your lack of belief is totally arbitrary, for no reason, and thus, is foundation-less and can be completely disregarded.
I didn't mean the unicorn reference to be flippant, and I apologize that you find it so. I was trying to convey the level of abstraction that a supreme being has from anything that I am able to observe in a context that anyone would understand.
You have to understand that I don't have any evidence to offer you that God doesn't exist. I do not even mean to suggest that God does not or cannot exist. If you believe that there is reason to believe in God, I can offer you nothing to dissuade you except my disagreements with that evidence. I can understand that puts you in a frustrating position, but it's the way I treat
any other idea.
I'll try another approach that will hopefully be less offensive to you. If you told me that bread caused cancer, I would ask to see the evidence, and would demand that such evidence be in a form that anyone could reproduce in a falsifiable test. Believe it or not, it's actually not possible to demonstrate that bread doesn't cause cancer. No matter how large my sample size, there's always the finite probability that my conclusions are wrong, or that the effect is smaller than my margin of error. Without evidence affirming a causal relationship, though, I will keep eating my bread. Likewise, until I have a real firm reason to believe in a God, I'll continue to live as if one isn't there. (I hope you don't find that analogy rude. I really don't mean it as such.)
Perhaps part of the difficulty in explaining my position is the term "atheist". I am limited a little bit by the politics of the English language. "Atheist" is often colloquially understood to mean "sure there is no God", but you actually won't find that many atheists who are ready to make that claim. Perhaps "agnostic" is a more accurate term, but it comes with connotations of being wishy-washy and a sense that the agnostic is uncertain in their position, whereas I'm pretty solidly in mine. "Humanist" is another term that is often used, most often by those wishing to define themselves as
for something rather than
against something, but I don't really love that term as a world-view, either, as humanity is such a small, insignificant part of this universe. I could invent a new term that I define my way, but that'll just confuse everyone. So I'm stuck, unfortunately, and use what term I find most easily recognizable.
One other aspect that I don't want to underplay, though, has to do with a line from the above:
I have a reason to reject other gods, and that reason being that the God I choose to worship gives what I perceive as evidence for his existence and is backed by more convincing history.
There is a "feeling" of divine presence that many have when looking at the world. My wife will stand at the edge of a cliff, look out at the valley, and see the wonder of God. I see the incredibly interesting outcomes of highly complex, dynamic systems (plate tectonics, lava floes, erosion, etc.). I stand in wonder, but at something very different. Does that fundamentally invalidate her point of view? Not at all, but it remains one that is unconvincing to me, and I don't know of a way to reconcile that difference.
As for the history comment, I stayed away from those discussions for the most part because I feel they miss the point. Most of the discussion centered on whether historical accounts of events were accurate, but did not ever confront the divine nature of those events. Whether Jesus was a real person does not tell me much about whether he was truly the son of God.