Working backwards.

[downbeatplumb]

Most Atheists say they don't believe God doesn't exist but don't know if he exists.  Why take a side of the fence before investigating? 

To say there are no proofs of God is a tall claim. Never seen an Atheist justify that but just say it would be presented to humanity and there would be no Atheists if there were some. But I think that is a weak argument. 

At the very least, if you wish to say there is no evidence to God, you should consider the approach that I talked about.

There certainly is no proof for god. In fact what a god is supposed to be has never really been explained to me.
What is it made of?
What does it look like?
How does it do these magical things its supposed to do?

I want well supported and peer reviewed scientific articles to back up anything you might put.

---

[quote pid='1515798' dateline='1487959864']

---

How about no.


Lets suppose a radioactive squid lives just outside your front door.

Now consider what colour might this squid be?

Some think brown others blue.

I move more towards a simple beige myself.

That's how you sound.

Another problem with your counter argument:

It works for everything trivial, but God by definition is the being who deserves to be valued and centralized the most in our lives.

I disagree. In the unlikely event that there was a god and it happened to be the one you pick. It would be interesting but still just a trivial thing. How would it effect me other than to be a thing?
It would be like discovering quantum physics, interesting but it doesn't really affect what I do down the shops.

So your analogy would be true of everything trivial or non-beneficial.

But as God can the most beneficial and most thing to be valued, then the counter argument fails.

What is more trivial than a thing that has so little impact on my existence that don't think it exists at all.