If you'll excuse another oldish timer's comment: Ha ha. Ha ha ha. Wow !!!!
But, seriously, do what works for you. If you prefer not to use AF and can get the shots you want and do not feel you'd benefit from the very great benefits that many people feel it brings, then by all means use only MF.
If people ask, to avoid confusion, I say I'm semi-professional. What that really means is I'm a keen amateur who has been seized by the photography obsession. I'll happily take photos at no cost in many circumstances but sometimes people insist on paying me. Well, maybe not quite that purist - the paid jobs more than pay for the equipment (if you count my time at about $1 an hour). People like my photos and many think "I'm good". I don't know what 'good' is. I take photos I like and I enjoy people enjoying the ones that I like. Some are sharp and well composed and well exposed. Some are somewhat out of focus, exposed well enough and the composition may be influenced and all the former may have been subservient to the joy of having managed to get the shot. Some of the latter are amongst my better photos.
I use AF, MF, manual everything, Aperture priority, Speed priority, fill/no/rear curtain flash, HDR - auto-zone-contrast - or none. Auto-ISO (sometimes), ...
I wouldn't be without AF.
I use AF most of the time - with MF override or fine adjust a finger twitch away. And somtimes I use MF, with AF backup just a finger twitch away.
I have a small stable of Sony digital cameras which have focus-highlighting when in maanual mode - you can see "in focus" areas painted with an identifying overlay. That allows me to manually focus with ease , if desired, on a single leaf deep inside a tree or glade, or the left eye or right eye or ear or hair curl or ... of a subject - after, if desired having achieved "good enough" focus with AF.
MF can be (and for me always is) available essentially instantaneously, and when I want it I am extremely pleased that it is there. But, for me, and not for all, AF is the workhorse, the essentially perfectly focusing and high speed assistant that puts the focus where I want it faster, in most cases, than I can, and entirely accurately enough, in most cases. With a quiet beep
(depending on mode) to let you know that it's good to go.
I wouldn't be without it.
I almost invariably waste all the focus points that reviewers and top photographers seem to value so much. I usually use single centre point spot focus, with recompose if needed (knowing the pitfalls of doing so). Occasionally I use movable single point AF. Once in 3 blue moons I use multi-point focus, and so far, wonder why. Then there's face tracking and smile shutter and subject tracking (OK that has its place) and more. And you can try all these and see how they work. But even rather plain vanilla AF is astoundingly useful, does not stop you using MF in a trice and allows you to transit to and fro with ease.
In modern mirror based SLRs AF can have alignment issues due to the length of the sensor light path and main light path being able to be slightly different due to lens seating micro-differences. This can be calibrated out and should be. Properly calibrated AF can (and does) produce results that are indistinguishable from MF. And which may be better as 'the machine' has fewer off-days than people do (but non zero).
Mirrorless cameras with in sensor AF sensors do not have this lens seating calibration issue.
Overall- MF is great, it allows the eye-brain system to pick the focus point in 'visually confused' situations. Results are about as good (or bad) as from good AF - but in most cases AF will get there first and often by a good margin. In a wedding situation - especially high tension, catch the moment moments such as bride-walking-up-the-aisle, first-kiss, exchange-of rings, throwing the boquet, quick meaningful glance - AF is your great friend in a competently engineered system - with MF and focus peaking lurking a finger twitch away.
Others may disagree.
Note: "Flame baiting" comment by reviser not apposite.
The comment was clearly intended in a good sense AND was clearly accepted as such by the OP. We had had an exchange of amicable comments on this and another post of his hours before the "revision". The suggested removal detracts from the general gist of the response. And, fwiw, note Michael Clark's comment, which is ignored by the revision, and would also be rendered meaningless by it.