How about the general skeptical worldview that you don't accept anything as existing absent convincing evidence or proof? It applies to God, Thor and Santa. The greater the claim, or the greater the consequences of the claim, the higher the standard of required proof. I might easily believe a friend who said he caught a fish "THIS BIG," but I'm going to demand proof if I had $500 riding on it.
There is proof on both sides of the question of whether God exists or not, but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.
I've never understood the concept of proof that a deity does not exist. The adherents merely need to ascribe to the deity attributes that cannot be known and omnipotency, and the existence will fall outside the bounds of any possible disproof.
but neither side will accept the other's proof as proof.
But generally in any debate it is the responsibility of the person claiming the existence of something to supply proof. Absent proof, the point dies on its own.
However, you're kind of missing the point if you'll only accept God based on proof.
But again, what one considers 'convincing evidence or proof' another does not. So it is still a step of faith.
I've never understood the concept of proof that a deity does not exist.
Perhaps. But there are others who proclaim that the evidences pointed to for evolution prove God does not exist, or that the troubles in the world prove that God does not exist. While you and I might disagree with their stances, it is what they have chosen to believe and no amount of evidence or proof to the contrary will convince them.
But generally in any debate it is the responsibility of the person claiming the existence of something to supply proof.
Ah, but once again, what one person considers proof, another will choose not to accept. Ultimately, we all choose what we will believe.