I'm waiting for the circular arguments to show up.

My favourite is the one I got into with my sister-in-law recently, namely the one of Prime Cause. You know, the whole "how can the universe exist without a creator", which doesn't address what created the creator.

I'm no linguist expert nor how atheism is actually defined but I think both is possible. You can have a belief in something else than god or reject the idea of faith.

I very much would like to say "I believe faith isn't necessary for all humans" as a comedic oxymoron but it is no good argument to support my claim. I suppose one could simply differentiate them as an evidence man, a man who lacks faith, or someone who rejects the concept of god but accepts something else, like your example with random constructions and when we die that's that. After all an atheist can reject the idea of spirituality but still believe in ghosts or omens. An evidence man however wouldn't believe in anything without what he accepts as solid proof.

My reply: "Then who created the creator? It's an illogical never ending cycle."

There is absolutely no faith, dogma, or set beleifs in not believing, to say otherwise is humorous.

"I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me."

Okay that was stupid. :P

"God always was" is usually the answer. To which I then have to ask, "Why would a timeless being create time? Why would a substanceless being create substance? Why would a perfect being create imperfection?"

Conundrum upon conundrum, once the box is opened.

Why would he also create the universe so imperfectly, and all beings on the earth imperfectly. And why does evil exist in the first place? Free will? No he put the tree in eden where he precisely knew adam would eat it. So no free will involved

"Tiny is a dead man - miss him, miss him."

I just find the superiority complex on both sides wonderfully entertaining. That driving need of the idiots and morons on both sides to prove their perspective as truth. When the simple truth is no one has a clue, not even the foggiest. Claiming there is no higher power is just as much a leap of faith as saying there is one. There is no proof either way, never will be any.

That's not a claim, the claim is that he does exist.
We say there's no reason to believe.

Hmmm either there is a muttonton worth of moderation, or GOGers are simply a lot nicer than the internet norm. I half expected a shitstorm here :P

Apparently he was also bored for the thousands of years of human existence, so much so 2 thousand years ago he finally decides he wants in.

He got bored again. Thought it would spice things up making a personal appearance.

Well, I don't think beliefs can be proven, anyway. I mean, I get it; everyone who says "I believe in God" cannot actually prove it (even if they try by saying "The Bible says so"). It is simply what they believe to be so. Beliefs are not facts, and even "facts" can change over time. I think people tend to misuse/misunderstand the word "belief" anyway; they want to cement it in solidity when it's more like a river.

But saying "If they believe it, then they must prove it" works both ways, in my opinion. It's no different than someone saying "You don't believe. Prove that."

Interesting that the onus is generally on someone professing a belief in favor of something who must then "prove" it, whereas "not believing" seems to be given a free pass - ie, "I don't believe you on (X), but I have no obligation to tell you why; I just don't." So why isn't that response good enough for the "other side"?

I guess I just don't understand - "I don't believe you. Prove it." If one doesn't believe in something, who even cares why the other person thinks what they think? For the sake of argument?