I didn't include the Big Bang, because as above, that was not an atheistic theory, quite the opposite.
First of all, you aren't allowed to make generic statements like this, expecting us to roll over and play dead after reading them, without adequate explanation as to where you are coming from. Abbreviated lists that sound like they came out of a Wikipedia article don't count.
atheist theories as listed explicitly strive to support atheism- usually in some form of 'no creation= no creator' Whereas the concept of a specific creation event was heresy to academics 100 years ago- explicitly for the obvious theistic implications, they overwhelming preferred static models - and were forced to move to cyclical and infinite ones, none have yet stood up to the rigors of science
I have never heard an atheist adhere to any "atheist theories". Nobody here in the many years I've been around has ever said "because of theory A or theory B, we have proof that there is no god." Never. We don't think like that. Reasoning, by definition, requires a lot more flexibility that you are giving us credit for.
I understand where you're coming from, but by that same rationale I could say I have no faith either, no assertions that require being backed up by science, because I simply lack faith in atheism through lack of evidence for it- I'll believe in a spontaneous/ automated/ purposeless/ unintelligent universe creating mechanism when sufficient evidence is provided, till then I default to a work of creative intelligence
You could say that, but you'd probably get a queazy feeling in your tummy. Your religion demands faith. I'm pretty sure you aren't going to rely on anything else to the exclusion of that.
But I do not say this because I freely admit my assertion, I am quite happy to provide what I think are good reasons to believe in God, not just good reasons to be skeptical of atheism.
You might concentrate on that part. You are don't too well making up why we are atheists, because the only thing you are responding to is your version of us, not the real thing.
Added is the reply I was typing up when you submitted the above. There is some repetition of content. Live with it:
I'm calling atheism a faith as in an unproven belief, the same faith many of those academics had and still have. Only theirs led them to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the entire universe. Lemaitre's didn't.
You're not allowed to redefine atheism for your own nefarious purposes. We don't believe. Our reasons are many, but do not require a specific scientific position. Again, you are too big on the frickin' science part.
You guys are the ones that can't prove that there is a god. And then you define me as a person of faith (of the negative variety) because you and I don't agree and because the word "faith" is of so much importance to you. You see it as universal, apparently. It isn't.
I retreated from religion because the concept of "faith" in the context in which you use it is silly. All god concepts require "faith" and "belief". Why does your god use the same strategy as the sky god "Igwekaala", worshipped by the Alusi? And don't go saying that they were just calling your god by a different name, because they also worshipped Ikenga, the god of fortune, Idemmili, (a mother goddess), Agwu, god of medicine, Njoku Ji, the god yams, etc. They are believed in by people who have faith.
It's an almost universal tendency, yes. Almost in the sense that atheists don't have any. So you can't say all people have it.
So, leave the science out of the discussion and accept that there are lots of reason for being an atheist. Unlike you and the one god concept, we don't need one overarching reason. That is not a component of what atheism is. Yes, many of us think that science supports our stands. But not at the faith-belief level.
And a suggestion: don't knock science too much. If it ever ends up proving there is a god, you'll have to reverse positions on the subject and that will be kind of awkward.