That atheism is not rationally justified

[Mudhammam]

I came across some argument recently. The general gist of it is that some beliefs cannot be demonstrated. Reason does not inclines us to believe or not those things. But we must necessarily make a decision because it is not possible to remain neutral on the issue. It being the case that reason is unable to settle things when it comes to the existence of God, can we then rely on hope and happiness to decide on the matter?

What this line of reasoning is implying is that given the nature of the question, atheism, while it may not be false, is not rationally justified; because reason is inadequate to decide on the matter.

The argument which is being pushed under this premise, as a follow up of sorts, is that compared to atheism, Christianity offers a superior view of life because it provides a better context for our hope and happiness (the criterion we must turn to in order to decide on the question of the existence of God).

"The 'salvation of the soul'--in plain language: 'the world revolves around me.'"

There are a lot of questions that reason is inadequate to solve: is the Sun conscious? Is the star Sirius home to our ancestors? Somehow I don't find myself compelled to affirm either of these two propositions simply because it's not a matter that can be determined by logic. If, on the other hand, I want to feel justified in the positive claim that a "yes" answer to each of those two suggestions is true, I think just about everybody can agree that "it makes me feel good" is not a satisfactory condition on which to posit my claim. The situation is worse with the Christian god because to be fair, my two examples are more likely to be true.