How an atheist defines logic and evidence?

The problem with God is that there is not any evidence at all that suggests that there is one. To be scientifically sure about it we would have to search the whole universe which is really really really huge.

"Atheism is based on scientific approach of accepting the things on basis of logic and evidence..."

Already wrong. I would agree most atheists are skeptics and that is the foundation of skepticism, but this isn't a requirement. You can be an atheist for bad reasons, just like you can be a theist for bad reasons.

That being said, logic is deducing conclusions from a set of premises in accordance with three axioms:

The Law of Excluded Middle,

The Law of Identity, and

The Law of Non-Contradiction.

These laws play a role in mathematical logic, but the two are fundamentally different, i.e. philosophy IS NOT mathematics, no matter how much people want to try and make them the same.

Evidence is different and the definition of what is acceptable as evidence changes based on what's being discussed, what field of study you're in, and to whom you're speaking. Scientific evidence and philosophical evidence are different, so which on you use for the god question depends on the person to whom you're speaking. Personally, I'd accept logical arguments as evidence assuming they were sound, but none of the arguments for god that I've read or heard are sound. Either their premises aren't demonstrated to be true (which leads to a conclusion whose truth value we can't say what it is) or they contain a fallacy.

You're trying to pack a lot into atheism without understanding what it is, which is simply 1 thing: the rejection of god claims. These claims are rejected, mostly, due to lack of evidence, and as such atheism is taking what's known as the Null Hypothesis. Look that up and don't go to statistics links, that's something different. All the Null Hypothesis is is rejecting claims which don't have evidence. I assume you don't believe aliens have visited earth despite the wealth of "evidence," i.e. people claiming they've seen them and been abducted. It's the same thing for the god claims from our perspective. Bad evidence isn't evidence and you don't accept outrageous claims without evidence... it's all the same thing.

Actually before the renaissance people were perfectly aware that birds existed. They knew flight in air was possible. As for gods, the problem with them is not so much that we have no evidence for them as that we can never find any way to rule them out as a possibility. A proposition that can never be proved untrue is one that can never be checked. The scientific method doesn't work on things that can't be checked.

Atheists never say "there is definitely no god, it's impossible". They say, as of NOW, there is no evidence that would prove the existence of supernatural entity. Ask yourself why you don't believe in purple gnomes with mohawks running around in your backyard at night. We haven't been able to PROVE that there are no purple gnomes with mohawks that run around in people's gardens at night. Should we believe this to be the case ANYWAY?

logic; a Mathematical language to write proof

evidence; a measurable logical implication of a prediction made by x theory or the stuff dropped by careless delinquents

i think there will always be an unknown but i don't think it's necessary to try to prove it all...life is full of mystery and that makes it more interesting...ignorance can be bliss...i might be considered an atheist but i do believe in things that cannot or may not be proven...unlike the faith of religion, seeing is believing and though the world is full of s**t, i will be hopeful...

Science deals in real things, like atoms and galaxies and gravity.

Religion deals in fake things, like witches and demons and gods.

RIP English

I know atheists who have no interest in science or logic.

They just do not believe.

This is the only thing harder to read...

Than your username....