Philosophical atheism

The real philosophical difference between atheism monotheism isn't really over God but over the spiritual world and spiritual processes. The atheist says those are empirically and logically unsupportable. By consequence, this means no God, i.e. no supreme being of any kind exists, and no means to "hear" prayers if He did exist. Also, no ghosts, no demons, no devils and no angels.  It implies all revelatory scriptures are works of fiction and/or philosophy. Psychic phenomenon are also negated. If superior beings are discovered to exist, an atheist expects their powers to be strictly contained within the universe and following its laws, known and unknown. There is no survival of the soul after death, no afterlife of any sort.

The atheist sees faith i.e. "belief in" as only a mental process that has no bearing on a person's destiny, eternal or otherwise, unless acted upon in some material way.    

The monotheist will argue that the universe could have never come into being without a creator because something can't come from nothing. But then, where would God have come from? Is it more likely nothing created God & God created the universe vs nothing creating the universe direct? It would seem the second one skips a step, but that's only a wild guess. We know there's a universe. No believing in it is necessary. No such self-apparent evidence exists for God. 

We can't know what happened 13.79 billion years ago when the known universe began. We only guess. Before that time, nobody has a guess. Guesses aren't faith. Guessing there's a God is of no benefit when there's no spiritual process that rewards the right belief. A guess about the origins of the universe is fixated too far in the past to have any benefit now. Whatever benefit the monotheist receives from correct belief are either psychological or material and are provided by the people around him.

And that's what's been on my mind.