The atheist believes it is purely rational to believe there is/are no god/s, they believe that absence of evidence is indeed not just evidence of absence, but sufficient proof of absence.
You asserted this before, I corrected you then, yet you continue to misrepresent the position. You may believe we are wrong in thinking that the evidence demonstrates to a high level of confidence that there is no god or other supernatural wotsits, but that does mean that the form of our argument follows your misrepresentation.
We
don't have an absence of evidence, everywhere there should be evidence of god there isn't. Everywhere we look we don't find supernatural bibbles we find the regular operation of simple interacting parts operating according to repeated principles; and the closer we study the more accurately our models explain and predict. Deism, theism or any other supernaturalism requires that fundamentally the universe is not as it is revealed to us by our finest means of investigation. I don't see any coherent reason to believe that is so.
They believe that they know all {A} such that there is no possible {A} that is not {B}.
You're {A} and {B} examples do not clarify what you're trying to say. What are A and B here?
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.