Ybe an atheist

[Angrboda]

No, you claimed theists had evidence for God, not just "reasons."  Faulty arguments are not evidence of anything.

 Yeah ok, All the ASSERTIONS presented  aren't even arguments so all I can say is they are faulty assertions.

You are asserting that they are faulty assertions. When you were asked to show this by providing evidence for God, you presented a faulty argument for God's existence. I don't see how you are going to demonstrate the claim that there is no evidence for God is faulty except by presenting alleged evidence for God and seeing if it withstands scrutiny. Otherwise you're just making an equally unsupported assertion. If not believing something because there does not exist sufficient evidence for the thing is reasonable, then the atheist's explanation is prima facie reasonable. If you're saying it's not reasonable, then you need to show why that is. On the other hand, if you are asserting that it is factually incorrect, you need to demonstrate that or be hoist on your own petard. It doesn't follow from the fact that someone has not presented evidence for their assertion that their assertion is therefore faulty. So your claim that the atheist assertion is faulty because it is an unsupported assertion is, on the face of it, simply wrong. And it will remain wrong until you demonstrate that sufficient evidence for belief in God exists. Yet that is something you've said you will not do. So you're left making irrational statements like the above.

My point is that Ts give lots of arguments/evidence, but the only As here have nothing but assertions.

Having an argument or evidence if that argument or evidence doesn't rationally justify belief in God is immaterial. If you have a counter-example of evidence/arguments that you feel should rationally compell belief, then present it. Until then, all you have is a counter-claim that is equally unsupported. I can have all the arguments/evidence in the world for why I believe that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, that doesn't mean that someone is compelled to hold the same opinion as me if those arguments/evidence do not rationally justify the conclusion. By saying that the atheist claim that "the arguments/evidence presented are faulty" is itself faulty, then you are making a claim, specifically that there do exist arguments/evidence which should compel one to believe in God. Until you present such arguments and show that they rationally justify belief, we're perfectly justified in our skepticism.

As a matter of precision, when atheists say that there is no evidence for God, they typically mean that the evidence that exists is not sufficient to justify belief in a reasonable, unbiased individual. If you are getting hung up on that, get over it. If you have evidence that should compel a Hindu or a Buddhist or any non-believing person to belief in your God, then where is it? Simply claiming that such exists, is, quite simply hypocrisy on your part. If theists had such evidence, then they have to explain why atheists don't find the evidence compelling. Mystic Knight for his part explains it by continuously making appeal to dark forces and Iblis, which, beyond being a blatant example of poisoning the well, is patently circular. If you are claiming that the atheist stance is unreasonable, then prove it.