I have to say, I don't see how your three points are logically grounded, or how they really apply to atheists/agnostics. Some atheists like to consider science an entity (you know faith in science vs. faith in a higher power). But that really is a silly way of looking at it. Science is a process. A process that serves as a compass. What we as observers of this reality can do is record our observations, test out hypotheses, gather evidence, and make informed assumptions/conclusions.

What you consider faith in science is not equatable to faith in existence of a God. Faith in science answering some mysteries is optimism It's just a prediction. It doesn't involve choosing to believe something that zero evidence has ever pointed towards. Believing science will continue to be science seems pretty reasonable to me.

As an atheist, it's perfectly reasonable for me to say, there has never been any evidence or indication for the existence of God, therefore, I choose not to believe there is a God without evidence.

It is also perfectly reasonable for me to say there are many things we do not know, but science will continue to provide many answers or at least evidence to point us in the right direction. This is because science's function is to discover. Nothing more, nothing less. Science is proven wrong by science frequently and this is not a negative result. Science doesn't ever prove anything really, but it is the only way we can learn about our existence and our reality.

What is unreasonable (meaning lacking reason) is filling the list of unknowns with a "insert God here" mentality. As the list of unknowns grows shorter over time, so will the list of "god did it". The point is the only thing that will ever provide answers is science.

iIt's more reasonable to be content with never knowing something than to fill in the blank with "God". The thing is, there is not a single valid argument for the existence of God. So you have to understand trying to argue with an atheist (smart or dumb) is like trying to argue with a Christian that Vishnu or Zues is real.

There is nothing wrong or dumb about choosing to believe, but such a choice does not fit in the scope of argument and debate and never will, because faith comes from emotion and spirituality, which cannot be settled with logic.

And honestly, even though it's wrong and fallacious to assume intellectual superiority over somebody who does believe, it's very difficult to keep that in check when somebody is essentially trying to convince you Santa Clause exists. This is why I try to avoid these conversations in life now. People will almost always end up offended if you question their reality or even humbly point out a hole in their argument.

For example, I was recently cornered by an older co-worker who loves to discuss his faith. He asked me if I go to church and I said I'm not religious, but that I respect everybody's beliefs. He then launched into a long rant about how he believes in evolution and knows the universe is so huge and complex and that humans are probably insignificant. But then he says "but you know, all if this had to come from somewhere, there had to be a creator to flip the switch, to give the spark of life, all of this beauty and complexity can't just magically come from nothing"

Now, obviously eventually something is going to have to come from nowhere. If God created the universe then where did God come from? If God has always been and will always be, why can't the same be said for the cosmos? But I couldn't say anything like that without coming across as "one of those atheists".

There is zero cognitive dissonance to atheism in itself. There are plenty of stupid atheists who can't form a rational argument to save their lives, but atheism itself is lacking belief. However, the points you made do not reflect cognitive dissonance. Science doe snot fill in gaps, it paints pictures. There is no science vs God. There is no science vs. anything. Sometimes the picture is crystal clear, other times it's fuzzy, frequently it is left blank.

I'm not sure how you and so many others (atheists and theists alike) keep waging the two concepts against each other. Saying science will eventually answer a question, is very different than answering that question with "god". A projection or guess about the future is nowhere near similar to religious faith.

If I say I believe science will eventually discover intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, it is in no way comparable to saying I believe in God, or that I believe God works in mysterious ways.