Best Living Spokesman for Atheism

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Whether or not an analogy against religious beliefs is a good one doesn't give me any good reason to believe any religious claim which is unsupported by any evidence, and even less good reason why I should seriously consider anything you have said here.

Delicate:

• Atheists are indoctrinated 
     most of us (in the US at least) were not raised atheists, and there are no atheist indoctrination camps
  
• Atheists are emotionally invested in their beliefs
     no, but I am sickened with sadness to see how stupid and cruel religion has made people everywhere               
  
• Atheists are incompetent
     but they win most of the Nobel Prizes
  
• Atheists make unsupported claims 
     right, whatever you say!
  

You seriously come across like a dolt here.

Nobody here is talking about whether you have a reason to believe a religious claim. To go back to the original question:

Someone can be unconvinced because they are irrational. Because they are prejudiced, or stubborn. Because they have an emotional commitment to their view that flies in the face of the evidence. They can be unconvinced because they are stupid or incompetent.

So it's not enough to say you are unconvinced. You have to show that you have made a reasonable attempt at examining purported evidence, and had good reasons for deeming them unconvincing.

Now THAT would be convincing. Can you do that?

Protip, Punk - that is not a question, it's an insult. If you still don't get that, then you can go fuck yourself with it.

I am now nominating you, Delicate, as the new Best Living Spokesman For Atheism - congratulations!