Hello

[Aiza]

Then you missed the point of the argument. It highlighted the difficulty in proving negatives and applications of Occams Razor.

The fact you had no problem replacing the teapot with God, seems to indicate you did not understand the relationship between a positive assertion and the burden of proof for complexity over simplicity.

Nothing you are saying here contradicts with my understanding of it. Maybe I'll revisit it, since I suppose I haven't for a very long time.

To be honest, the most legitimate atheist argument, remains, and will always be religion itself. You are Catholic, they are Muslim, she is Sikh, he is Hindu, they are Jewish, they are Zoroastrian, etc etc.
The fact if you took a census of belief based upon the religions you reject, we are all weak atheists. Even the pope.
The Outsider Test for Faith is one of the strongest arguments, and atheism is potentially the only philosophical position which passes.

Atheism doesn't have to do with rejecting religions--you can be an atheist Christian, for example. Atheism is "The theory or belief that God does not exist", sometimes expanded to "a lack of belief in God" (though that starts getting some weird implications)

The "Outsider Test for Faith" came about a bit after my time as a strong atheist, I'm afraid, and um, I don't see it as a strong argument at all (at least if I am reading the same test you are). It asks me to evaluate my religion as an "outsider". But I was already an outsider to my religion. As are the other ~50% of Americans who belong to a different religion from their parents. And while location can play some role in religion (though it certainly doesn't dictate anything) there's nothing you can say about the relationship between location and religion that you cannot also say about the relationship between location and irreligion.