If I were an Atheist

[The Reality Salesman01]

On the other hand if there was a preponderance of evidence that naturalistic forces alone caused the universe and sentient humans to exist, people would abandon theistic belief without any special skills, ability or knowledge.

This statement presupposes evidence to be the sole basis for religious belief. Surely you would admit that this is simply not true.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious belief being any more valid.

Theism isn't a religious belief, I am a theist. There is no church of theism.

My apologies.

The disparity would make sense, and it wouldn't point to religious Theistic belief being any more valid.

Fixed it, and it makes no difference.
Fixed it, and it makes no difference.

This is when Santa or another ridiculous idea can be useful in illustrating the fallacy they've just employed in place of reason. Obviously, most adults don't believe in Santa Claus, but what we are hoping Theists will realize is that nobody needs to disprove Santa Clause before it's justified to not believe in him. We are hoping that you think more about why that is, rather than allow yourself to be reflexively offended. To a Christian, I don't use Santa, I use Allah.

For someone who claims to think critically you haven't thought this through.

I am always willing to acknowledge when I've made an error. Let's see if you're right.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved

In an argument, you should refrain from using tactics like this to gain favor. This is called "Poisoning the Well". Rather than offer an argument for your position, you've implied that one is not sane, lucid, or an adult if they oppose your position. You haven't given any reason to accept your position as the reasonable one. Instead, you implied that there are consequences for those that may object. That is not thinking critically. Let's edit that part out, and search for some substance in your argument.

Belief in Santa (if any sane lucid adults actually believed in such) can be easily disproved with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a mystical being doesn't deliver presents worldwide on Christmas eve.

For this exercise to work, you'll need to follow the rules of rational discourse. You've claimed that I am not thinking critically and I assume this was an attempt to show the errors in my reasoning by demonstrating how easy it is for you to refute that Santa exists. First, I never described any of Santa's properties, you took those liberties without being prompted. When did I say anything about Santa delivering presents worldwide on Christmas Eve? You assumed that was the Santa I believed in, but it's not. That is just a Caricature of my belief. Aside from that, you didn't present this "preponderance of evidence". You made a baseless assertion that it is available and then claimed that you could use it to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your caricature of Santa does not exist. You didn't even refute your own version of Santa.

I'll impugn belief in God by comparing it to Santa Claus.

I don't share your belief, I don't recognize a difference. Don't you see that this begs the very question we set out to answer? If I am of the opinion that not only does your God not exist, but it would be impossible for any sane, lucid, adult to consider it as a possibility, why then ought I take your position seriously? You have to acknowledge that to someone who doesn't believe in mystical supernatural things, I am inclined to have the same attitude toward your God. Instead, I am trying to engage in a rational exchange. I assume you would like me to take you seriously, no? I am sure you do not want me to tell you that it would be a defamation of my character as a rational person to even entertain your position about gods. Do you understand the comparisons yet?

Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable. All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life. If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

No, it's not true. It's not a belief claim. You've made a few errors, and I'll show you exactly where you've gone wrong.

Secondly, the God hypothesis is falsifiable.

If it's falsifiable, then you must know what you would expect to find if it were not true. Give me an example of this sort of evidence.

All you have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence that mindless mechanistic forces can account for all we observe including something completely unlike itself sentient life.

Can you show me two examples of two different universes so that I might compare them? In this universe, I don't have any evidence for a mind creating a mountain, a small coin, or a pubic hair. You're telling me that a mind IS responsible for creating those things AND the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, or how you could know that because you have not yet demonstrated that it is worthy of consideration. There isn't anything in our universe that points to supernatural magic.

If there isn't such a preponderance of evidence then your counter claim is a belief claim true?

I haven't made any claims. Look bud, it's just you and me talking here. Here's what's going on:
You said "x" is true.
I asked how you know that.
You said that I can't know that it's not true (I agree with you, but that still hasn't explained why you think it is true).
I still don't believe you because you have not given me any reason to think it's true.
You accuse me of making claims that I cannot back up with evidence.
The only claim that I've made is "I don't believe you." And that is a subjective fact about my state of mind. It has nothing to do with whether or not your claim is true, I'm just describing my attitude toward your inability to effectively establish truth statements.

Can Christians prove that Allah does not exist? No. But, they don't believe in him, why?

You claim to be a critical thinker but you're still not thinking this out.

Always possible, and I'll be happy to own any errors on my part.

The difference between the God of Christians and those who believe in Allah is a difference of opinion of the nature of God, both groups share a belief in God. There differences are theological in nature.

If you were a Deist, you might be able to dodge the bullet on this one, and there's no shame in changing your tune now. The reason for my bringing this up is because you are a Theist. Your position implies something about what you believe God's nature to be.
You made two statements which I've bolded, and I want to make a distinction.

If a theistic God exists, he exists only in a manner that is consistent with the nature of His existence, and NOT in any other way. (a difference in opinion regarding the nature of God's existence means that either one is right, or they're all wrong) It is a logical contradiction to say that God and not-god are compatible with respect the actual nature of His existence (if true). If the gods of Hinduism are real, then the singular God of Theism would not be. These are fundamentally incompatible by the nature of their alleged existence.

If god exists, but there is a difference in opinion regarding the descriptive qualities of god that are not essential to nature of his existence (ie. His favorite color, his favorite tribe of primate, his preferred preapproval process in order to apply for a slot in his neighborhood etc.) then it is still possible that Muslims and Christians could be wrong about some or all of these things, and a god could still exist, but there still wouldn't be any reason to accept that a form of theism is true. The possibility of one or both being wrong says nothing about how likely one is to be true.

My reason for asking that type of question is still valid, but I'll happily revise it.

Can Theists prove that Polytheistic Gods do not exist? No. But, they don't believe in them, why?