Atheism: As Abstinent from Faith as a Catholic Priest is True to Celebacy

I usually don't rant about the beliefs of others, but in this case I figured I'd express my frustration with being told that my faith has no empiricism or that there is no Science behind theology. What chaps my ASS is that the people saying it are ignorant of the history behind how Theologians have been skeptical of each other, using proper logic. Furthermore, they assume that theories like Intelligent Design aren't relevant to Real-World professions like CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. I just don't figure how anyone can assume that a lack of data suggests an impossibility to find it. Abiogenesis (A myriad of theories stating how living organisms came from non-living matter) has been disproved in favor of Biogenesis (The observation that living things only come from living things, by reproduction); unless you'd like to argue it only was relevant to Spontaneous Generation (Which is like arguing that an orange isn't an orange because it's name is different in Chinese).
Well I can't get into all the facets of each theory of Abiogenesis, as I even care for such frivolities anyways, I didn't make this entry to rant about theories of the Origin of Life either. The point I'm getting at is there is such a strong appeal to Atheists in the form of the calling of empiricism to support their assertion of Naturalism (I've yet to meet a Dualist Atheist, they usually just go by Agnostic to keep intellectually safe). Which is absolutely ironic to me since there is such a strong faith in the lack of evidence, it looks similar to a young-Earth Creationist who denies all catchall facets of Evolution. Don't get me wrong, I laugh at Darwinism and every Neo, Neo-Neo, Neo's Neo-Neo form that will come up for it. I only believe in Micro Evolution in biology. Furthermore, the term Evolution can be applied in so many ways that it seems misleading to use the word without an adjective to accompany it at all times. So, though I'm not an 'Evolutionist' I still can be called a Theistic Intelligent Design Proponent who accepts certain facets of Evolution processes. 

For all the people who are offended that I'm making sweeping generalizations about Atheists, I'll try to clarify my perception so it doesn't seem like I'm assuming the only kind of Atheists are those who subscribe to a particular 'event' for the origin of life as opposed to refusing to allow themselves to be subjected to a God of the Gaps fallacy just because they are lacking irrefutable observation of a process of Abiogenesis. 

I'll be rather frank..
There are two kinds of Atheist minds I've dealt with over the years.

1. I don't believe in the Supernatural because there is no observable data that's falsifiable.
2. I don't believe in God because "He" can't be proven.

It is very important to make notice to the second example, because these are usually opponents of Judeo-Christian concepts of divinity more directly than any other religious cult. I find it very disconcerting to deal with these people because they tend to use circular reasoning, AKA begging the question, to push the precept that there is nothing that gives rise to supporting evidence.
The second example is your typical brain-washed, stereotype of Anti-Christian rhetoric propagandist who relies on the concepts of religious atrocities and Church-body corruption to make Ad Hominem fallacy arguments to support the idea that anyone trying to prove Divine action, presence, or otherwise Authority of this Universe is religiously bias and therefore unqualified to search for the supernatural (sometimes they go so far as to discredit *said* religious believing researchers work on the same incorrect manner of inference).
These kinds of Atheists rub my skin until it's chapped..

The first other kind of Atheist is the kind I can maintain emotional stability and intellectual integrity with. I am at ease to say that these are the kind of minds I can agree to disagree with, usually it comes with an inability to reconcile the merit of data based on personal preferences that may be as simple as Cognitive Dissonance.
I may have a problem with the manner of inference, mostly because there is a clear misunderstanding of the veracity of methodology, but I never feel attacked. Furthermore, it is these kind of minds that I've found become reasonably Agnostic while uncertainty rests at the center of their thought.
However... I just had to separate the two to make this entry CLEAR that I'm making a rant about my indignation as opposed to an ideology.

Moving on...

I will always feel that Atheism, at it's very core, is a belief system just like Theism.
There is wiggle room in using terms like, "Lack of" or "..poised in Empiricism" but the problem isn't that the terms are used capriciously to make the wiggle room or a matter of equivocation.. It is dishonest if the claim is that the conclusion for the worldview of Atheism is based on irrefutable fact, that being that there is no facts about the possible existence of a deity.
I would prefer not to argue from the stance that Intelligent Design has made claims that are growing in merit. I would rather hold to an argument that this supposed absence of empirical data is a false claim entirely. For one, an extensive amount of research has gone into the area of Cosmology that deals with origin as much as the same facet of Biology. In both areas the conclusion is just as helpless in the pursuit of proving Naturalism is absolute. This isn't because a 'proper' theory doesn't exist, it's because the proponents for the tenets of Naturalism FAITHFULLY hold to the fundamental assumption of undirected cause from nothing.
I don't hold it against any Atheist for being faithful to the Naturalistic Methodology, as long as there is honesty that there is Cognitive Dissonance preventing them from accepting a notion that discredits their world view. I can relate, it's not like there's any shame in saying: "I'm a Naturalist of the Gaps. It's a fallacy of logic, but it's better than assuming an answer wont come eventually let alone that it was God or something."

Think I'm playing...
Assume I'm talking from my rear..
Get offended because I'm supposedly wrong.

The basic bottom line is that there is a huge pitfall when it comes to the Atheist worldview presuming that it is the Atheist's with the upper hand in Science. There is a growing concern about the Duality of the Human experience, prominently the existence of a force that directs the energies of the Nervous System to give rise to the Conscious Individual. Also there is a growing discontent with Science's inability to show or even suggest what existed before the Universe, other than the circular reasoning that the Universe is expanding and contracting (which is even more ridiculous than assuming the Big Bang happened for no apparent reason, even though that can't be determined empirically yet). Those are the two biggest reasons not to be a Naturalist, which is the basic premise of an Atheist worldview. The one other thing I find critical is the inability for Researchers to explain the origin of genetic information; even Darwinism is rife with the contradiction of 'special' creation at some point.
I would rather hear someone say they are Agnostic, just so I could propose all the reasons to believe the sheer ludicrous nature of believing that a finite Universe wasn't created since the mathematical attributes of Physics and even the statistics of it giving rise to life naturally are more improbable than just saying 0.
Don't get me started.. There's a greater change of winning the Lottery ten times in your lifetime. Yet, I don't even care about statistics and the Singularity or the Hubble Constant. All I care about is that I don't believe there is any accident of interpreting data or a lack of ability to measure the Phenomenon in the Universe well enough to dictate what the proper worldview is. The Human Experience is enough to remind me that no amount of biological complexity to explain the attribute of Love. I came into this world because of Love, I survived to this age because of Love, I think about these critical concepts because of Love. So if there is anything I have to say about Love, it's that no Science and no data can legitimize or otherwise nullify the importance of Love. Even an Atheist seeks it like an Alcoholic does a Liquor store.

I wonder how Einstein could be so profound in his proverbial sense of intuition that he simultaneously fathered Quantum Theory and understood the indisputable nature of the creator being non-malicious? Perhaps he wasn't bound by the constraints of a bias that is steeped in misconceptions of Theology?
Who knows.
Most people hate on Einstein the moment it comes to using his expertise to show he understood the pitfall of being a strong Materialist.