This topic is supposed to be about if FE theory can be explained without creationism, but all of my threads quickly turn into "stop being an atheist so much" and me going "no!". Or "you spelled that wrong and that word is stupid" "is that really important?" "Yes, and you are dumb."
If you are going to argue logic, argue logic. Let the survival of the fittest ideas sort the rest out. I am functionally an atheist myself. Although I think agnosticism is the only logical conclusion, atheism is the fittest survival strategy so for all intensive purposes, I may as well be one. It's silly though to be bothered by all the religiosity in the country.
We only just transitioned in the last 150 years from a world where the superstitious model was the fittest, to one where the logical model was the fittest. (I mean this in a practical, day to day level where superstitions were used to give reasons to everything from what makes food spoil to what herbal remedies lowered fevers.)
You feel strain? Good, adaptation is
supposed to have that affect. From my perspective, though, you may want to relax about it a bit more. Your username suggested you'd be easily baited if you were accused of being an atheistic zealot, and you proved those people right. This discussion what thus derailed. I would recommend that, instead of finding ways to bring atheism
into an argument, look for ways to factor all faith elements
out. If you want to "argue logic to win over those that invest in faith" then don't argue against their faith, just argue against the weaker constructs of their world view. If they start a religious argument, decide first if you want to enter one right now. I avoid those like the plague, instead argue that regardless of religion, the world
should make sense, and debate what we find within it. You are far more likely to soften a religious zealot that way than by blunt force arguments, though it is definitely still a lot harder than preaching to the choir.