I have a feeling this argument between theists and atheists is going to go back and forth for a while. here is my summary:
1. theist believes something
1. atheist believes something else
2. theist believes he has evidence which makes him right, and when he is right he feels good because his belief is reinforced
2. atheist believes he has evidence which makes him right (principally by countering the evidence of theist), and when he is right he feels good because his belief is reinforced.
3. if theist is 100% right that the evidence he has provided is a. valid and b. corresponds with Bible he still hasn't proved there is a Christian God
3. if atheist is 100% right about the evidence he has provided which debunks theist's evidence he still hasn't proved there is not a god (even if he proves that this god is contradictory by some rational philosophical standards).
4. we don't have access to knowledge of the relationship between our beliefs shaped by our experiences ("evidence" or "proof" ) and the actual truth of things; we pretty much only know what makes us feel good about ourselves.
a. theist feels good about being Christian
b. atheist feels good about being atheist
(some atheists say something like well maybe i'd be happier if i believed in heaven/afterlife/whatever but i'd rather sacrifice that happiness for truth; ultimately, atheist is still choosing his own happiness)
that's about it.