Before I was intimidated by atheists, they were a highly elite group of ultra intelligent people sitting together stroking their beards and debating in long complex dogma I could barely understand. They WERE smart people, with much more education than me, and certainly they must be all correct.
Well, after nearly 4 years of reading and studying hundreds of atheist articles (thank you atheism reddit !!) I've found they are no different than any other group of theologins. These guys and girls have found two common core themes:
The first comes down to arguing about the nature of god. God cannot exist because of he/she/it cannot exhibit such an such a trait for reasons X, Y, or Z.
Their reasons are valid, their conclusions apt, but this does not disprove the existence of any God. It just comes down to saying God cannot have these traits.
Saying "Why doesn't god just use all his powers and get rid of world hunger, disease, pain and suffering?" is a valid argument, and is worth talking about. But, these are all arguments on the NATURE of god, but is not an argument against the existence of any God.
This is front and center popular old school theological debate. These long theatises belong right there alongside the cardinals, bishops, rabbis and imams arguing over what St.Blabla meant when he said "Blugh bla bla." on the sin of "Y." Congrats, you are a theologin!
The second is arguing about who has the burden of proof. Is it up to the theists to prove their point of view, or is it up to the atheist?
It was described to me believing in God would be the same as believing there is a invisible flying monkey circling above my head.
Is it up to the the one's citing the existence of the flying invisible monkey to prove it, or is it up to the one's saying there is no flying monkey out there to prove it?
Can anyone prove or disprove that there is an invisible flying monkey above my head?
No. I don't know there is one. There could be, but who knows. Why keep arguing with everyone telling me that this invisible monkey above my head exists, when in reality I just don't believe there is one?
I saw similar things like this when studying history. Did Constantine really see a flying cross over the battlefield which made him win the battle? We don't know this, none of us were there. It is possible, unlikely even, but there is not enough evidence to say otherwise.
How does a burden of proof argument help prove or disprove the existence of a god? It doesn't. Nothing ever gets accomplished. It sounds like two retards at work looking at a full trash can endlessly yelling "It's yer job to clean it" "Nah uh, I've been cleanin it all last week, it's yer turn." "Nah uh - yer the one who saw it was full." SHUT THE FUCK UP AND EMPTY IT! Heh, maybe this is why atheism irritates me, they'reno different than the rest of religion nerds I had the unfortunate chance of running into while I was in school.
That's it people, there is the heart of your Atheist arguments.