Reality suffices!

1.      We need no Deity for that more abundant life.Our own purposes and human love and this one life suffice. Divine purpose and divine love and the future state  lead nowhere. When   people feel that He helps them when they help themselves, they are merely using faith in Him to inspire themselves to use their own inner resources. Therefore, people should rely on real sources of inspiration to get themselves to use those inner resources, and in fact, people could just use them without any external inspiration.
2.         Prayer when supposedly answered merely reflects post hoc- coincidences, whilst people rationalize about unanswered prayer. Researchers find no evidence that prayer works.
3.          Deity makes no miracles.Why  would He help people find keys when He fails to overcome the Holocausts. Why would He allow Marian apparitions with inane remarks at times when such makes no rewards for knowledge?
4.           What gift to knowledge comes forth to allege that He is the overall explanation when God did it is so vacuous? How could He as that personal explanation work in the Cosmos anyway? Until theists can offer some explanation, that offers nothing.
5.           Aquinas' own superfluity argument keel hauls all arguments for Him. Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly explains thus:" To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions -laws - of Nature,M.L.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." The theists would beg the question to allege that why, that's a category mistake.
6.            Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham argument notes that either He is vacuous as a square circle or He is a useless redundancy,despite Alister Earl McGrath.
7.             The Flew-Lamberth the  presumption of naturalism maintains that natural  causes and explanations themselves are the primary cause and sufficient reason. Naturalists demand evidence to overthrow this presumption.
8.              Lamberth's teleonomic argument notes that as science finds no divine intent, then without that intent ,He cannot have referents as Creator and so forth and thus cannot exist as the ignostic argument shows. To maintain,however, He does have intent but chooses to hide it ambiguously as the late John Hick maintained with his epistemic distance argument, but no, as that makes for Lamberth's new Omphalos argument that He deceives us thereby as Phillip Gosse's old one states that He deceives us with apparent ancient age for things to suggest evolution.
9.                Theists see intent and design as Lamberth's argument from pareidolia notes  instead of mechanism and patterns just as people see Yeshua on a tortilla or the man in the Moon.
10.              That pareidolia makes for superstition as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes that indeed theism is just reduced animism and thus as superstitious as full animism or polytheism. All animism depends on invalid intent.
11.              People murder others for that superfluity and superstition!   
12.              All that makes me a gnu atheist. Apologetics, and the horrors should make any a gnu!