My argument for atheism +

[Rahn127]

Let's say I recently purchased a home and every room in the home doesn't contain any furniture of any kind.

While showing the empty house to a new neighbor who has never been in the house before, he comments on how nice my dining room table is.

I look at him strangely and say "I don't have a dining room table".
He replies "I believe that you do. It's invisible and intangible, but I can clearly feel it's presence in your dining room."

He holds this belief to be true.
I do not have such a belief.

Are you really asking what my argument is for not having a delusion ?

You don't seem to have any invisible, intangible squids swimming around your house. What argument can you give to support this ?

I just find the question itself to be kinda stupid.

You find it stupid because you assume that God would be visible and tangible in the way that a table is tangible. 

I agree that the man in your example is strange, because tables are in fact visible and tangible. But you'd need to demonstrate two things:

1) God is knowable through the same kind of evidence, and
2) there is no evidence of any kind for God.

These two things may well be true. They may be entirely reasonable positions to hold. But they are still epistemological positions that you hold. They are not nothing. They are the basis of your current atheism.

I didn't assume anything.
You assumed that I assumed something.
You were wrong.

Real tables are visible & tangible, but imaginary tables are not.
Having a delusion about an invisible & intangible table is not a reasonable position to hold.

You also assume that I must hold some epistemological position about the existence or non existence of someone else's delusion.
Again you would be wrong.

Another person's delusion has nothing to do with me.
I don't have to formulate an argument about why I don't have a delusion.