I base the nature of my faith by starting with the assumption that God exists, and then trying to use my limited knowledge of the reality shaped by him to infer what little I can about the nature of what such a being would want based on thinking that reality itself is an outcome of God's will to fulfill such desire.
 
If it is truly God's wish to be worshipped by those who resulted from this creative act, then the lack of unity and surplus of strife that results from our limited grasp of what nature or form such worship should take, makes it evident that some aspects of the Christian image of what I can only call "God's personality" are faulty and self-conflicting. I think the very notion of a force that by its nature operates outside of reality itself even having something akin to "personality" is very demeaning and biased to our own outlooks on the nature of the abstract concept we personally identify as "understanding".
 
If God had a careful plan in defining the very nature of reality and how it unfolds through our own biased perception of time, (to the point that we can say that our very own abilities to apply reason and logic are likely divine gifts delivered directly from this creator) then by using the logic God granted our species, we can infer through observation that for God to have a personality, it must be that this personality has no desire to dictate the nature of it's will to those it caused to exist. Any claims to the contrary can always be sourced to a being that is deeply rooted in reality itself.
 
Speculation on the nature of God or divinity is fine, as long as we are willing to acknowledge our own existence's limitations as biases that will always conceal true understanding. But to speculate on how to execute the will of such a being, might as well be tantamount to blasphemy. Any time I hear a person say "God's will", my conscious brain will always translate this phrase to "I know more about what God wants than God does". Even by taking at face value those stories involving God's heralds coming to earth to deliver His word to mankind directly, even those words straight from the Angel's mouth lose every last shred of credibility, in terms of being from a truly divine source, the very instant they entered a human ear.
 
 

Basically, the very notion of religion itself is the negation of the assumption that the nature of God's fundamental existence, and the nature of reality itself are entirely separate from each other. Yes God himself is an existence that precedes matter, but for religion to actually exist, we rely on the hidden assumption that some pieces (or configurations) of matter are more intricately connected to God's own divinity, than other pieces of matter in some other shape. The easiest example I can think of is matter in the shape of printed text taking words from The Holy Bible, being of a form that qualifies as more "interconnected with divinity" than matter in the shape of printed text re-creating words of the Koran. 
 
If we take the word "Atheist" entirely literally, it actually does not require not believing in God, at least not how you define it. Atheists probably disagree with me, but I do not see their fundamental stance as "God does not exist". At face value, It's alot like saying quaggleplorphs don't exist. Saying something doesn't exist when it is literally impossible to know what it is, by definition has absolutely no implications whatsoever. I tend to interpret the statement "God does not exist" as something more along the lines of "I view the concepts of "God" and "existence" as entirely separate and in no way connected". If God is not connected to existence itself in any way whatsoever, but still created all of existence while remaining entirely separate from it, then the question of whether or not to believe in him is a moot point.

i mean maybe the topic is not a dialogue but a monologue? maybe we're supposed to post our wack-ass crystal prison beliefs in monologue and not listen everyone (it's close... dumb topic whistles and eyeballs elsewhere)? austerness or autistisms... i wonder if there is a trialogue? man i'm starving, jesus i'm actually starving, what a nice feeling to feel after like FOREVER.

dumbtopic made me an ex-atheist

The ultimate irony of this topic is that the discussion itself could easily be interpreted as proof that God does not exist, since a kind and loving God would never let someone believe in him purely based on such faulty premises.
 
Oh no, now it's I who doesn't understand the meaning of terms I'm using! Quick, everybody run! It's SPREADING!

They only think of it like that because they view the world of modern scientific achievement as something that is continuing to make their case of God being absent for them. They see God not as something that fully encompasses that which is truly unknowable about the nature of reality, but rather as a go-to excuse to fill in the blanks for literally any phenomena that does not already have an explanation rooted in reality. Even if they did see God as the full embodiment of that which is impossible to know, the state of what is possible to know and that which is impossible to know is still always in a constant state of flux. All thanks to the consistent and reliable advancement of scientific thought, that has probably been going on for just as long as the entire debate about the existence of God.
 
My problem with the very nature of the debate is that it is impossible to really have a consensus on what "God" actually means. Yes you can give definitions, but they are all rooted in our understanding of reality, so none of those explanations can ever be proven or dis-proven for the context that's both within our universe and separate from it. You can have an atheist argue God does not exist, and a theist argue God does exist, and they could be talking about two entirely different things! They both see it as the exact same concept simply because there is not a better word to assign to their own personal understanding of what it is they are even trying to argue over!

There really is no objectionable "need" for metaphysics. It's all philosophical drivel that only serves to satisfy the collective ego of our entire species. (Unless you are one of those people who assume that Ethics cannot even exist without Metaphysics to justify it, but I tend to view people who think like that as self-serving asshats who need nothing short of divine intervention just to treat a fellow organism like its something even worth being treated with respect)
 
Empirical testing on the other hand, has led to practically every advancement you could imagine needing for living in a society you'd actually want to live in. That doesn't mean empirical testing can do anything for the realm of metaphysics, nor does it mean it is going to simply make the concept of metaphysics outdated in of itself.
 
I'm not saying this as an atheist, just as an agnostic who bases his beliefs almost entirely on what is both rational and practical. People are totally free to disagree with me, but I personally see Metaphysics as something people will always want, while Empirical Testing is going to be something people will always need.