Yeah we don't deny we use faith, you do deny that you also believe in lots of things strictly by faith.
But you know that I don't accept your definition of faith. Faith is unjustified belief. The beliefs I've expressed to you are all justified. I've given you the argument, which you haven't refuted, which is always the case with sound conclusions. Any unsound conclusion can be successfully rebutted by identifying the error of fact or reasoning that makes the argument unsound. No sound conclusion can be rebutted since it is correct. I make sound arguments and you fail to rebut them. The faith is all yours.
Reasoning should tell you God is more plausible than magic matter.
Reasoning tells me that belief in gods is unjustified, and therefore faith, which is guessing. And it should tell you that gods are less plausible than naturalistic interpretations of reality. Why? The evidence is pretty lopsided when one compares the number of things once attributed to gods now understood naturalistically and the number of things once thought to be natural that have been shown to be better explained supernaturally.
What purpose would a god serve? What would its job be? The universe is self-assembled and automated. Apologists keep looking for a role for a god to fill, but can't find one. They offer designer of the living cell as a role that can only be filled by a god, citing that cells are too complex to have arisen undesigned and uncreated by an intelligent designer, never noticing that their rescue of this problem is to invoke the existence of something even more complex and less likely to exist undesigned and uncreated. Reasoning allows one to identify and then reject the incoherent ideas like that one.
So the atheist has not decided that no such thing as God exists?
You seem to never make progress in this and a few other areas. It's pretty pointless answering you again except to say that you still haven't understood what was written to you, and just recently, too:
The universe:
I. Had no prior cause
1. Always existed
2. Arose uncaused from nothing
II. Had a source
1. Unconscious substance (multiverse)
2. Conscious (deity)
Did you not understand what that meant? Why is it that I get the impression that every time I repost this, it's as if you've never seen it before? Why am I sure that within days, you will be making that same claim again about what atheists believe?
Of course, if by "God" you mean the god of the Christian Bible, that one has been disproven. I doubt that you're interested in the disproofs. No believer ever is. No believer rebuts the proof. None have even tried. None have ever indicated that they read or understood it. So, I consider the matter settled. Debate ends when the last plausible, unrebutted statement is made.
Other gods remain possible, such as the deist god, about whom almost nothing is alleged, hence agnostic atheism. But not the biblical god. The Bible writers fleshed it in too much, enough to see that that description contradicts both observation and pure reason. Of course, one needs to be in the "little club" to come to such conclusions.
