Our investigations into the world are biased towards non-existence (and rightfully so). By this, I mean that we only posit the existence of something if we need it in order to explain some feature of the world. So, we don't posit invisible gnomes unless there's a damned good reason to believe they exist. Positing invisible gnomes explains precisely nothing, so we don't bother.
When it comes to "God," there is no need to posit this entity, because thus far we've been able to explain things without it (including the beginning of the universe). Thus, unless a compelling reason can be given explaining why positing God is necessary, the default stance ought to be atheism (and this is with regards to all conceptions of God, not just the Christian).
very eloquent...
unfortunately in science, not proving the null does not prove the alternative.
Meaning...that without proof for or against God the default stance is not knowing.
who are you to judge what serves as reason to believe for someone?