You can say that you see no evidence of God, but that puts you into the agnostic category as far as I'm concerned.
That's an issue of semantics. I consider myself an agnostic atheist. That may sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. I acknowledge that it can never be proved with absolute certainty that there is no god (if the definition of god is loose enough), but for me, the absence of any evidence forces me to assume that there is no god.
Unless you've perceived everything there is to know about the Universe, how can you categorically state that there is no God?
You can't of course, if you define the word god loosely enough. You can, however, categorically state (for example) that the Bible is full of contradictions, and therefore could not have been written by the god most of its adherents worship (i.e. an omnipotent, loving god). So you can say categorically that gods with certain attributes do not exist. If you define god as (for example) an omnipotent being who doesn't interact with the material universe in any way, then by definition, its existence cannot be disproven. Of course, such a "god" is hardly worthy of the name, and even if such a being may exist, it may as well not exist.
Basically, I just believe in one god less than you do. I reject your god for the same reasons you reject other gods.
--
"The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, 1794.