Even if you choose not to believe in god, you’re actually believing in god

[wiploc]

Because, god is omni-present, and omni-being and omni-everywhere, so even in absence it’s there for there is no such thing as true absence.

So i heard that recently and i would like to hear from atheists here what you all think of this statement.

Thanks

I might use her own logic on her backwards:

Even if you choose to believe in god, you're actually not believing in god.  That's because there are no gods anywhere, so there's no such thing as the true presence of god.  So anything you believe in is not god.  So you don't actually believe in god. 

And then I would add:

It's obvious to you how stupid that sounds when I say it, so why can't you hear how stupid it sounds when you say it?  My argument is exactly as strong as yours, yet they reach opposite conclusions.  An argument that is exactly as strong as its opposite is worthless.  It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.  

I could point out that you committed various fallacies like equivocation, circular argument, begging the question, but you don't have to understand that stuff for it to be obvious that your argument is worthless.  Any argument that works equally well when reversed is worthless, and you saw instantly that my reversed version of your argument is worthless.  

So the question is ... why didn't you also see that your own version is worthless?  What made you blind to the fact that your argument was patently fraudulent?  Why would you field a terrible argument in the first place, and why--just because you agreed with its conclusion--couldn't you see that it was terrible?  

That's something you ought to think about.