No. I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm saying there's no more evidence for his existence than there is for any other superstition that we would otherwise dismiss as silly.

So, in essence, though the quote itself might not mean this, you're using it as a way of 'agreeing to disagree' on the reducible grounds that 'faith needn't offer any evidence because that's what the definition of faith is': again, that's a cop-out, it's horseshit.

So, my point stands: 'All of those are self-serving intellectual faux pas, designed to cocoon and parry; a cop-out.'

I'm very open to the idea of a God, should we arrive at some concrete evidence that there is one. Of course, should I begin to want there to be a God, under the right circumstances - some medical drug, for instance - I might start finding the 'proof' that I feel I need. But such proof would never reach beyond the profoundly individual. It's internally insular, a way of coping with certain material issues - and nothing more. It's a form of idealism, a way of interpreting the world, a way to which I'm eternally opposed.