When I ask for evidence of God not being real , why do Non-Beliveres never actually answer?

"Faith," by definition, means that a person believes regardless of evidence or lack thereof. Many atheists have a problem with the idea of "believing" in something that lacks adequate scientific support. You really can't prove or disprove God or gods or deities. They can't come up with a "good" answer because there IS no good answer. It's like in statistics you come up with a "null hypothesis" - and the burden lies in disproving the null hypothesis. Lack of God is the null hypothesis (null means zero), and without enough proof to suggest that God isn't not real (ie without enough proof to suggest that he is real), we fail to reject the null hypothesis, and continue with the conclusion that God is not real. They can't prove that he's not real... but you also can't sufficiently and scientifically prove that he IS real. (Personally I choose to believe because it brings me peace, but I'm essentially agnostic because I have no way of knowing for sure either way.)

When I ask for evidence of God not being real , why do Non-Beliveres never actually answer?

Just what evidence can anyone present for none existence that is actually tangible. Nothing.

What evidence does something that is not real leave behind, nothing because there was no such evidence in the first place.

Really? That's all you've gotten? You should really try hanging out with more philosophers.

Your alleged god doesn't exist because it is defined as something which contains a logical contradiction in the very definition -- omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive and so cannot exist any more than a square circle or married bachelor can exist. At the very least, you have a very poor idea of what you even believe in. Secondly, whatever excuse you have to make for why your alleged god does or does not intervene in any given situation makes that god less likely than a god which does not need that excuse. Given that there is no independently verifiable instance of divine intervention, your god needs a mountain of excuses. There is virtually zero chance that any god exists and your specific god is many orders of magnitude less likely than that. It is far more likely that there are dragons, leprechauns, anal probing aliens and a sunken continent of Atlantis... But we all recognize these things are almost certainly false given the complete lack of any evidence for them beyond the wild stories of people who believe in them.

"When I ask for evidence of God not being real , (sic) do Non-Beliveres (sic) never actually answer"

I am answering you and I am an unbeliever. You do NOT need evidence that god is not real. There are two reasons for this.

First, god does not exist. I suspect you're referring generically to the Christian-Jewish-Muslim god. There is no evidence for the existence of any god or other supernatural being. The lack of that evidence is itself sufficient.

Secondly, it is not possible to obtain evidence to prove something does not exist. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy do not exist. There is no need to provide evidence that they do not exist. The lack of evidence is enough. It is not possible to generate evidence that they do not exist.

Personally, as an agnostic, I've never run into a situation where the existence or not of a god makes a difference. When studying the material world the assumption is always that, even if a god exists, she's not messing with the results of your experiments. Finally, if a god exists, I've seen no way to distinguish which or all of the various named ones it might be, although all seem to take offense if you pick the wrong one.

Actually I suspect the answer you always get is an explanation of the burden of proof. Atheism isn't making a claim, it's rejecting one. The burden is on the religious to provide evidence of God's existence. I can no more "disprove" the concept of a god then I can disprove the concept that in 10 years the Superbowl will be won by alien dinosaurs with lazer vision. Both are foolish to believe without evidence.

It's right next to the evidence of wizards not being real. Look at the evidence of wizards not being real. Now a bit up and to the left. Can you see it?

the evidence for god not being real is the absence of evidence that god is real. And it is pretty compelling evidence, actually.

It's because we can see that you are an intellectually-dishonest tool who probably knows he is committing the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof but is hoping that uninformed people will be too ignorant to notice, but doesn't have the integrity to admit it.

.

.

why should they?

YOU never actually provide any evidence it IS real, so why should they provide evidence it ISNT real