Simply put, a belief defines an idea or principle which we judge to be true.
To a theist, "belief" in a deity means that he judges his thoughts and images and stories about God to be true. The lack of belief of the atheist comes from the fact that the doesn't share the same judgement as the theist. But his lack of belief isn't the direct result of the lack of evidence. That lack of evidence results in lack of knowledge. Only then, based on the lack of knowledge, he judges that absence of knowledge as grounds to not share the belief of the theist. But that judgement he makes is in itself a belief.
What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be an illogical proposition to say that lack of belief is a direct consequence of lack of evidence. The logical consequence of lack of evidence is lack of knowledge. The direct consequence of lack of evidence about the existence of God is agnosticism.
First, please refrain from commenting on things you cannot possibly know, such as how "most" atheists feel when someone makes a bag argument.
Ok, I'll rephrase: Most atheists that I have come in contact with ....
Eden