Although I was speaking Latin in that video, I've tried to make it universally accessible by putting rough English translations of what I was talking on the pictures I've included.
Most of the atheists would probably begin by talking about the burden of proof. I don't think that's a good idea, there is much better evidence that God doesn't exist than simply the lack of evidence that God does exist. Furthermore, many religious people, thanks to the conspiracy theorists on the Internet, think there is indeed evidence for God, but that it's being hidden by scientists. However, the Omnipotence Paradox is really a 2+2=4-type-of-proof that God, as commonly defined (as a perfect and therefore, among other things, omnipotent being), doesn't exist. However, I don't think people find that psychologically convincing. So, before that, I bringed up the problem of different religions, the argument from inconsistent revelations (though, in my experience, most Christians don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they also don't have a sensible answer to "Why would God let his words end up corrupted?"), the "Why hasn't theology given us any useful answers?" (in my experience, Christians generally agree with me that theology is at least mostly useless) and the argument from natural evil. The argument from natural evil is I think a relatively convincing argument.
Most of the atheists would probably begin by talking about the burden of proof. I don't think that's a good idea, there is much better evidence that God doesn't exist than simply the lack of evidence that God does exist. Furthermore, many religious people, thanks to the conspiracy theorists on the Internet, think there is indeed evidence for God, but that it's being hidden by scientists. However, the Omnipotence Paradox is really a 2+2=4-type-of-proof that God, as commonly defined (as a perfect and therefore, among other things, omnipotent being), doesn't exist. However, I don't think people find that psychologically convincing. So, before that, I bringed up the problem of different religions, the argument from inconsistent revelations (though, in my experience, most Christians don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but they also don't have a sensible answer to "Why would God let his words end up corrupted?"), the "Why hasn't theology given us any useful answers?" (in my experience, Christians generally agree with me that theology is at least mostly useless) and the argument from natural evil. The argument from natural evil is I think a relatively convincing argument.
