God is so quiet

[SteveII]

The typical atheist believes that God did not create the world ex nihilo and all that there is is a result of time and chance.

First let's get the nots in the right order. The typical atheist does not believe that a god did create the world ex nihilo; not, as you mischaracterised it, the typical atheist does believe that a god did not create the world ex nihilo. Like mathematical operations, word order is important. Where you place qualifiers both positive and negative will vastly alter the meaning of the sentence. The -ism part of atheism is attached to the -theism part, so any attendant beliefs which the a- prefix nehate are purely on your side of the equation.

Now let's look at the second half - all that there is is a result of time and chance. Well, we can all agree to the "time" factor, I hope. Chance? Chemical, biological and physical matter behaving in chemical, biological and physical ways is exactly the opposite of chance. There is an element of randomness, sure; however, given the immense scale of the 'laboratory' and the relatively limited combinations of ways these things can interact, that the Universe is as we see it shouldn't surprise anybody.

Based on all this, what part of the beliefs attributed to me as a typical atheist fails to line up with the natural world quite as well as the typical belief that an undetectable supernatural agency is responsible?

I stand corrected. Thank you for the tone in which it was delivered. 

As to why I think my belief better matches with reality...

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
(for those in the peanut gallery, these are only titles of full arguments and not arguments or assertions themselves. It's stupid I have to note this, but I do.)

I know, I know. We don't know everything...yet. There could be perfectly good naturalistic explanations for all these things. My point was, that as part of a cumulative case, these lines of rational inductive inquiry serve to strengthen the historical and experiential (mine and others) components of Christianity. 

(another note for the gallery, an inductive argument is a probabilistic argument where the premises suggest the conclusion--not prove the conclusion).