Every time I get into a theological debate, the pro-God side says something to this effect: God only exists if you want Her to.
This argument is nothing. Sorry, it's not nothing; it's just pointing out the obvious.
Of course you will believe in something if you want to. It's simply a matter of prioritization. Say you don't want to be alone, more than you want to live in an enlightened state. You will create a God, who you can always talk to and thus never be alone, to avoid this loneliness. However, not everyone is willing to give in that easily.
The mistake that so many of the pro-God make is the assumption that the anti-God somehow does not want God to exist. Yes, I know, that's very contradictory wording.
In some cases, yes, this is very true. I still haven't found a religion that proposes a wholly good God, and so I would not want any of their models to exist. I'm not going to force myself to believe in the Invisible Pink Jesus, or the Fallen Spaghetti Angel.
Still, let's just say that I found a model for God that I liked, and didn't see any harm in whatsoever. Would I wish its existence to be true? Yes, very much so.
The problem is not a lack of faith, but a lack of evidence. I do not believe your God exists, not because I don't want to, but because you haven't proven it to me. This is the mistake the pro-God make, in a nutshell; the assumption that all skeptics are closed-minded.
It is quite the opposite; strict monotheists are closed-minded. In a sense, they are atheists themselves, as they only believe in one deity, and reject all others. Were they not so closed-minded, they might instead be henotheists, believing in only one god, but accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities.
However, admitting that their claims are completely faith-based would also mean admitting that they believe, and believe in this specific incarnation, because of a personal agenda. This agenda can be formed for a variety of reasons, and though I could list reasons, I would only scratch the surface.
The specifics of these reasons are not important; only that they exist. If you are worshipping God, are you doing it because God exists and God is good, or are you doing it to stave off loneliness, or to gain eternal pleasure in Heaven? Is it because the hope of a purpose is the only thing you have after an existential crisis? Oh, shit, I'm listing, anyways.
I find that, once one honestly evaluates their reasons for their beliefs, they often find that they don't really need God, or that their view of God is an irrational one.
No, I'm not saying faith should be dropped entirely. I'll admit; it's impossible to prove a negative assertion, although my thinking is exactly the same for unicorns.
A summary of my point: Theists, when debating, please remember that demanding the opposition to force faith is not the same as providing evidence for your claims.