Why Atheists don't believe

Basically the same reasons given by SNC and ramoss.
Plus I don't see a need for it, or any intellectual benefits arising from such a belief in terms of improved understanding of anything.The concept of some divine, omnipresent, omnipotent being is just completlely superfluous to my world view and couldn't possibly add any clarification to it. I think you might end up with a lot of semantic entanglement on what various people construe the words 'believe' and 'evidence' to imply.The short answer would be no.
The longer answer is that I don't even like the word believe in application to science. Although I would say
I 'believe' in obvious physical laws such as gravitation, etc. and I 'believe' in the scientific method as the best method for approaching the truth, there is a large body of scientific inference that merits the assignment of various levels of confidence that fall far short of 'belief', and these levels of confidence are largely determined by the nature and quality of the evidence supporting and/or contradicting the hypotheses.

But is there any reason to 'believe' in love, either?
Isn't 'love' simply an anthropomorphic and romantic glorification of something very basic and biological?
Isn't it just a subjective manifestation of feelings that are a product of natural selection favoring the urge to propagate genes?But nice narrative. I commend you one your honesty and openness in recounting the development of your faith. I found it interesting. It certainly touched Iano, but that was predictable.

Not so. I have oftened pointed out that scientific insight is a combination of the objective and the subjective. We alternate between the objective and subjective, back and forth, repreatedly, when we struggle with scientific problems.For example, when we collect data, and we seek to collect in as unbiased a manner as possible, we are striving for objectivity. But when we try to interpret these data, we form concepts and constructs in our minds that might be consistent with these observations. This is an entirely subjective process, but it must be 'proofed' (notice I didn't say 'proven') by constantly returning to an objective evaluation of the data and testing for conformity. Thus science has both an objective and a subjective component to its advancement, at least if you are a scientist seeking to advance it.Subjectivity is not to be eshewed entirely, but it must be recongized as an internally-derived construct. The problems with subjectivity only arise when we fail to recognize it or apply when objectivity is required, as for example in the design of an experiment or other empirical endeavor. Edited by EZscience, : spelling

No, because that's a moment when subjective expression of feeling is clearly warranted - and certainly expected on the part of your spouse.