Not believing there is a god is logically the same as believing there is not a god.
Except functionally, not believing is a position that does not require a burden of proof whereas believing is one that does. You have to be able to justify your beliefs to yourself, otherwise they are no beliefs. I lack belief in a gods because there hasn't been sufficient evidence for me to establish a belief. I don't actively disbelieve in gods because I think it is an unanswerable question to rule out all possible god concepts. I do currently actively disbelieve the Christian god, because there is sufficient evidence for me that the claims made in the bible do not stand up to scrutiny.
Are you an atheist and stating that this is your position, or are you putting up a straw man?
As an atheist, my position is that no claim about the existence of a god has met a burden of proof strong enough for me to believe it. I lack any believe in a god. It is not an active belief that there are no gods or cannot be a god. I am what is usually called an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I do not think that we can know with absolute certainty whether a god exists, and atheist because I have not been convinced by any argument that gods exist.
What it should have to say is nothing. Since the vast majority of software is going to be provided with these terms - i.e. "as is and without warranty"; then the law should be changed to say that unless otherwise specified all software is provided as is and without warranty etc. That should be the default. (or whatever we as society decide is a reasonable default for the majority of cases). Then only software that requires something else, such as that used to run critical systems will need more than the default terms and conditions or license - and the purchasers of that software will ask for such license terms.
We need to get to the point where the default covers the vast majority of cases. It's no longer the 70s where software was expensive and employing lawyers to draft licenses was a small proportion of the cost.
Actually what's needed is a standard set of terms and conditions that apply by default to all applications that everyone agrees is reasonable (consumer and producer) and then only where a developer wants to impose something different should they have to say where they vary from it. This is what happens in other scenarios where the public interact with companies.
You don't have to read a massive 'terms and conditions' contract when you check into a hotel since there are consumer protection laws about how hotels can treat their customers and laws to protect the hotel from abuses by customers such as theft of towels or trashing of rooms. Similarly when you buy a burger there are generally accepted conditions about the food being fit for human consumption and health departments who enforce it.
Otherwise we'd have to spend forever reading through terms and conditions every time we interacted with companies. As a society we decided that a level of standard regulation made life better for everyone. This is what we need for apps, for websites and for online services.
Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick to anger.