First, I'll answer the OP. No I don't doubt my position regarding god. And that's because I don't have a position. I have thought about it and came to the conclusion that 'god' is not a well defined concept nor is it completely coherent. I think that there are many questions to be answered before we can define and postulate a god. I choose not to make these assumptions and therefore live my life as an atheist, but without any convictions. Absence of answer because of the absence of a question is how I'd describe it.
Dustin, your idea that we don't see the whole picture boils down to questioning the validity of the human observator and its knowledge/conclusions. Can I trust my senses and rationality? Is there more that I cannot grasp? The question is certainly valid, and one that I do ask myself. However, I believe it does not have much to do with religion. Sure you can apply it there, but it remains a purely philosophical question.
Now if you have other arguments, I'd be interested. But before we go there, I must critique a form of reasoning that I often see. I often read that 'evidence' is needed to accept something as true. And the absence of such evidence leads in many cases to discard to hypothese. In a purely practical way (psychics, astrology, magnet therapy and so on), I accept it. But on a philosophical basis, I must disagree. Saying that "there is no evidence for god" or that "I have analysed all arguments" and pretend that such a reasoning is a basis for atheism is misleading at best. Atheism is a gut feeling. No argument can lead to it. No argument can lead against it. Pretending that absence of evidence is a valid argument is a fallacy in reasoning. And pretending that we can analyse all arguments in all light is pretentious.
