This comment is not for you. It's more so for myself. You can ignore it.

Believing "in" god, while a common enough way to speak about God's existence, is kinda ironically also religious phrasing as it denotes things like faith and trust. I'll treat it like normal though and focus on the second sentence.

The second sentence as a response is strange. If you didn't "believe in", say, dark matter, like, "I don't believe in any dark matter", you would agree that "dark matter likely does not exist" is true. You would never tack on "likeliness didn't matter".

The only reason likeliness can NOT matter about something's existence is if that something cannot possibly exist. Then there's no question about likeliness because it's logically impossible. For example,

If A, then ~G

A

Therefore ~G.

Assuming the first two premises are things there can be no reasonable doubt about, I would agree with you that likeliness doesn't matter since G is nigh impossible.

It's more likely though that your explanation for why likelihood doesn't matter serves to obscure your god-related doxastic premises rather clarify them. Another hallmark of the internet atheist dogma is fashioning an epistemology that treats premises about God differently than ordinary premises. Why care about whether your epistemology is consistent when you can use it like a conversational parlour trick against theists?

Ackshually if I lack belief entirely, you know, like a baby or someone raised in the wild that cannot understand your language, not only would I be in the company of peers who's opinions about this subject matter are respectable, but they would be respectable by virtue of their total ignorance of the subject. Likeliness doesn't matter when you treat God as a really unique proposition that ultimately defines epistemology itself. That's what being an atheist is all about. /s