Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Grand Nudger]

Be careful there.. you might mistake correlation for causation. Just because my parents' belief are on average correlated with mine doesn't mean it's a decisive factor or cause.

I'm unconcerned.  I think that the vast weight of evidence to that effect allays any rational doubt.  

You seem to misunderstand what inference means. You live in a world where we have the following observation : children naturally give functional/teleological explanations to things. 
This observation doesn't entail that God exists, of course. I am not attempting a deductive argument, but an inductive one.

This observation is better explained under theism than under atheism. One would expect children to be god-tilted in a world with god, it's much less likely to happen in a godless world. That's the nature of an inductive argument. And rejecting it means that you don't care much about what we observe in this world, or you are trying to block the conclusion that theism is a better explanation of the world.

I think I'd explain what children do by reference to children, not the presence or absence of fairies.  

The existence of pretty fish is a premise in an inductive, a posterori argument, and in fact, any appearance of design can be used as a premise to infer a designer. But the designer entity itself is not empirically detectable in the same way we can detect the presence of an animal by their footprints. We infer from observating the world that a designer intervened at some point and started the entire thing, without needing to "locate" the designer.

Any claim about anything made with reference to it's appearance is an empirical premise, as empirical premises refer to what we can observe.  

The world either looks designed, or it does not look designed.  You can either use an empirical premise, or deny any possibility of an empirical premise - but to do both simultaneously is self defeating, thus..incoherent. You can side with either, and both have their utility - but this is a fork in the road of a rationally explicable faith. That is what you insist you have, is it not?