Arguments against existence of God.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Because many atheists have been adding their own dogma to it.  If it was merely a single position, as you stated, it would still be just that.

What dogma?

And who exactly are you referring to? I want names.

Oh here's one of them.  It's amazing how it took less than a minute of his argument for someone to find logical fallacies, yet this "the case for atheism" as he so eloquently named his video.  He's also claiming that one subject is a construct and then forming to own "construct" then using fallacious arguments to promote such.  Of course he flounders worse and worse as it goes on.  Additionally his stance is not just atheism, but "metaphysical naturalism."  How much more dogma do we need here?  If beliefs about A are wrong, it doesn't automatically prove B is correct.  Of course to even make that assumption, we must accept his interpretation.  Why? 
Atheism is an opinion.  Having said opinion has nothing to do with science, origins, or anything else.  I can have no such opinions about such things and be an atheist, because there is no prerequisite to adhere to atheism.  So why does he even need a "case for atheism."  If the value is 0 (no gods whatsoever), it doesn't require input of any kind.  Once you start adding to it you end up with something else. Now you have atheist churches, hymns, offering plates, , tax exemptions, religious protections, etc...  

---

No sorry, cherry picking definitions doesn't work on me.  Try again.

You have religious claims, organization, protections, collect offerings that are tax exempt, and make claims beyond the scope of how said agency is defined.  I live in the United States of America.  Here you are both legally and empirically a "religion" with said protections.  To discount the Chinese is also irrelevant because their definition differs from your said definition and their primary religion is atheism.  Your opinion doesn't dictate anything beyond the scope of who you are.  If you say you are an atheist, that's your opinion.

I have no religious claims ... you have demonstrated NONE, I belong to no organizations, (by that idiotic definition, golfing would be a religion, as well as ANY organization where its members have anything in common), protections apply to many groups, not just religious, so fail again, I collect nothing. 

If a religionist says they are a person of faith, it's nothing but their opinion.

Here's the definition of religion. Atheism meets none of the standards of these definitions.
Do try harder again, next time.

"re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
sect, church, cult, denomination
"the freedom to practice their own religion"
•a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"


If you're trying to make a case that no one actually knows what they think, and YOU know better, .... good luck with that one.

Cherry picking definitions doesn't work.

I like how National Geographic put it here.
[/url]
[url=https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/]The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

Of course the subtitle is perfect for this kind of thing:

"As secularism grows, atheists and agnostics are trying to expand and diversify their ranks."

Apparently you are now to be known as "Nones" (Not nuns)

"The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths."