Do you think lack of evidence provided by humans, little animals who live in a dust spec for a relative short amount of time, gives you enough confidence to say "there is no creator"?

For some generalized creator figure? I can't disprove that, however I think Russel's Teapot comes into play at this point. We couldn't detect a porcelain teapot the size of a common teapot in stellar orbit between the Earth and Mars. So, currently, it would be impossible to disprove that claim, however there is also no reason to accept it. The burden of proof is on those who make these claims to support them, not on those who don't accept them to disprove every claim they could posit.

For any of the creator figures I'm aware of non-deist theists claiming exist? At least of all those that I am familiar with they have self-contradictory stated natures, operate in logical contradictions, and perform impossibilities. In short: They don't exist because for that not to be the case then the few things we can demonstrate to be true must be false.

That is exactly my issue with atheism, that they think their human reason gives them enough capacity to take a position to something as complex as the origin of reality.

The only times I've seen an atheist back their atheism just with human reason is when explaining logical contradictions about the asserted god. Most arguments I'm aware of use more than just logical contradictions in the opposing claim. More often than not I see them engaging with the proposed evidence for the claim and providing contrary evidence against it.

It's just outside of our reach and anything we choose to believe, even if rooted in reason, is a wild guess.

We use the terms 'rooted in reason' and 'wild guess' to mean different things. To me a wild guess is made in the absence of reason or without regard to it while something that is 'rooted in reason' is about as opposed to that as is possible, a belief that stems only from what it well supported by evidence, reasoning, or most preferably both.

I'm not sure I take your meaning for 'just outside our reach'. Are you stating that we're close to it but not there yet or that it is categorically beyond our ability to reach such that we will never reach it?

The most rational thing to do is just to stop guessing. I feel if people accepted their ignorance more frequently instead of taking sides without actual knowledge, the world would be a better place.

I'm sorry but this comes off as somewhat disingenuous directed toward atheists. We're not accepting the other side's guess and generally also provide reasoning for that decision when prompted. Contrast with the theistic position of the assertion of some grand causer or creator and subsequent assertions that anything not yet explained rationally is somehow the work of this unsupported asserted entity.