This note has been assembled in response to two separate requests.
Saying that there is a god does not make it so. I can go long with not questioning something until the need arises, but when the need arises, we need to be able to justify that belief or question it and have a response. Handing the belief to the previous generation may not be sufficient. The time is now to understand and defend your belief in a god, and your belief that there is a god. If you are unable the likely reason is there is no god.
The religions cannot agree on a god, therefore there is a possibility all religions are wrong about the existence of a god. When I examined the question, going back to first principles, and the rules of evidence, working forward with two hypotheses, there is no god vs there is a god, and placing only positive statement, with estimated probabilities, the no god side comes out in front. It is not close, for there is no evidence that points to a god.
In an critical thinking issues, we first need to eliminate biases as much as possible, and become aware of the biases where they cannot be eliminated. We need to eliminate fallacies like "we do not yet know therefore god" arguments, as well as the other forty most common fallacies of logic. At that point we are ready to start laying down the deviation of the dueling hypothesis, one line at a time. Keep in mind that verbosity and time pressure are not part of the logic, when one gets through each argument, for and against, based on logic, nothing remains in the pro god hypothesis. So one is forced to conclude there is no god, logically. There remains a weak possibility of some sixth force out there, after the main four, weak, strong, elector-magnetic, gravity and the fifth, dark.
Existence is the next issue that need definition. Concepts exist, at least in the minds of people, yet have no physical existence and therefore do not in fact exist. If you choose to include concepts in your definition of existence, god exist to you, and if not, gods do not exist. This does not challenge concepts or that belief of concepts can influence the lives of believers, and those around. It only challenges the the physical existence of a god. Those who say god is beyond space and time place there god into the concept field, beyond space and time. So they do not want to acknowledge that there god is just a concept, with real impacts on the lives of believers, but remains a concept only with no physical existence. So if there is a god, it is in the realm of concepts, not physical, so therefore god does not exist, the believers only think that god does exist. It is all quire logical by confusing as the existence depends on if concepts are included or excluded.
So is your god a concept or a physical object? That is the dividing line of faith verses reality. Once one decides, god is either a concepts, or the hard truth of reality, no god. If you chose to say that there is a god and he is real, then you are living in a fairy land; an untruthful world of not understanding and separation of the details of logic.
All reality can be divided in to actions, physical objects and concepts.
The religious typically will not take on this argument. First there "holly" books cannot be use, only logic from starting hypothesis from first principals and without the fallacies of logic. They also like distraction and verbosity, flooding the field with much noise and verbosity, and no logic. When they lose, they cannot accept it and they just go away. Without settling this what is god issue, the foundation of any religion is like Ron Hubburt or J Smith or whoever.
Oh well, in the end we all just die anyway.
And here is a list of what atheists are not: http://godlessmom.com/9-things-atheist-does-not-mean/