I completely disagree, and our secular court system is set up based on the same kind of thinking that leads me to do so. Check out court rules, and the lawyer practices that have to be approved by the system (one would think!) and see for yourself what kind of conclusions and thoughts get elicited just by following established legal procedures.

Let us pretend (isn't that what religion is really all about?) that we have set up a legal proceeding in a bonafide court, and are putting all those who proclaim the existence of something called "God" on trial. You'll find we don't need to contrive pink unicorns or Jolly Old Saint Nicholas to come up with effective arguments (not that anything is wrong with them except for sharing the same kind of nonexistence)—

 Theism makes a claim, not only about the existence of god(s) but also of the authority they have derived from acceptance of that claim. If gods are nonexistent, this makes for a dangerous situation, if it is allowed to advance, in which anyone can claim anything they want and set themselves up as an authority about their claims.

a. If no gods exist, no two religions will be much alike, and all kinds of dangerousness will prevail, let alone deadly conflicts between the most aggressive kinds

b. If no gods exist and aggressive manipulators are allowed to proclaim otherwise, mankind will become beset by all kinds of conflicting information about the kinds of subjects that allow a few people to control important parts of the lives of a majority.

c. If no gods exist, people will be required to devote important amounts of time and energy to meaningless rituals and activities and to perform acts against their own best interests for no real reason at all.

d. If no gods exist, people will be required to supplant their own sense of self with an idealized false loyalty to an artificial entity of whatever description that lured them to adopt it. they will defend this false artifice with the same vigor, even to the death, as though it were their actual self.

To prove the claim in a court of law, they must provide verifiable evidence. They have never.

______________________________________________________

From those two items to establish the rules and ethos, and with the predictable results of allowing them free passage clearly in mind, lawyers involved with putting God on trial might offer such arguments as those which follow:

_______________________________________________________

Had the claim gone unstated, no other feature of existence would lead to the inception of ever making the claim, let alone the conclusion, but for the timid brains of ancient humanity.

The claim most likely would have gone unstated, or the statement been disregarded, had mankind arrived on this planet with a fully-formed understanding of the practice of science, especially of Newton's Rules of Reason and the Principles of Atheology.

Even without that, the laughable claim would never have been given impetus had not the most offensive characters found a way to use it to gain advantage and prominence in their various groups.

Were there any truth at all to the claim, the descriptions given of the gods by their various kinds of adherents would not be of everything the imagination is capable to contrive, but would definitely be a whole lot more consistent.

Were there any truth at all to the claim, the descriptions of the various gods' edicts and demands would also be a whole lot more consistent. Righteous Gods would not command some of their loyal followers to annihilate others of their loyal followers, not unless they are gods from out of hell (and how is anyone to tell the difference, given the current scriptures from the various evangelical religions, and comparing them to current teachings of those religions and their claims about each other)?

a: If, as the most prominent of the religions claims, mankind is modeled after their god, that in itself had ought to be qualification enough for individuals to determine for themselves what conditions and attitudes constitute 'righteousness'.

b: If that is deemed true, then the god's edicts are not necessary and humankind ought to be able to determine the nature of righteousness for itself without requiring input from any gods.

c: If that be deemed false, then those of mankind seeking to speak for the gods are not to be trusted without a direct and verifiable, unquestionably authoritative announcement made in public by the god(s) regarding their appointment. Without that widely witnessed public announcement, those people ought to be treated the same as any con artists or perpetrators of scams and frauds, and made subject to arrest.

If there is a god, there is more than likely a family of gods, and even more likely many families of gods, each with as much authority and rights over us as any of the others. Each god would have necessarily been "created" by a being of some sort, the complexity of whom would necessarily have been greater than that of the one(s) they created. If that is so, then our god would only have been capable to create the universe because he/she/it had not the required complexity to create a lesser god than him/her/it self. That would explain all the fuck-ups that he/she/it made, but presents no reason to think that would make him/her/it worthy of worship; whereas the original god may be.

Since 8: seems to be the correct scenario without verifiable information to the contrary (and it is not your job nor mine to prove, since the onus for it all still remains with those who first stated the claim), what would make anyone think those scandalous people deserve the benefit of any doubt, and so promote that they may escape what punishment they deserve for their inhumane disadvantagement of generation after generation?

If 8: should prove not in evidence (and it is not your job nor mine to provide evidence, since the onus for it all still remains with those who first stated the claim), what would make anyone think that those dishonorable people deserve to continue in their roles as lawgivers and makers of moral edicts?

Regarding agnosticism, no real way can be presented to support that as the best evidentiary position, since it does give some support to those who deserve none. Without evidence at all available, apatheism (NOT agnosticism) may be an even better position than atheism, since it presents the person who deems apatheism proper to be making a statement by choosing to label him/her self an apatheist, that "I cannot be bothered to concern myself with that (claim about gods that we are required to bow down before when I have only your word about them), therefore I do not care."

Panatheists have no beliefs not only in gods, but in all aspects of the supernatural, and demand proof in the form of verifiable evidence before we will so much as acknowledge "I don't know" about that. Maybe we don't know, but unless someone gives a reason to think otherwise, "I don't know" ought better to reference their reasons for lying to us, and what  advantages they are seeking in their efforts to convince us. To say, "I don't know" in reference to their reasons for lying, rather than allowing their claims the dignity of actual consideration, requires the claimants to prove they are not lying in spite of their lack of evidence.

To rely on the positions taken in agnosticism, condones the escape of the conscienceless ones from immense amounts of taxes upon their edifices and lands in which they have invested. This makes it far more than just a casual exercise in semantics, because the taxes we have been required to pay throughout life to make up for moneys lost to fraudulent purposes most likely would have paid for a home for each taxpayer had it been purchased early on. To allow such a high portion of our population the advantages offered by their enablement to operate in a secular society in which they refuse to pay their fair share is a condition that seems unjustifiable to growing numbers of those of us struggling for a whole lifetime to make up the difference, especially during a time when significant numbers of formerly productive people now go homeless or have been subject to endangerment of losing their homes.

A person ought best to be considered innocent until proven guilty. According to the purveyors of goddism, all are guilty for the fact of being alive, and therefore must be purged of their guilt. In the goddist system, as it is practiced, innocence is only possessed by the guilty (added only after listening to their claims and complaints against the various sorts of "secularists").

FOOTNOTES                         

(1) Look also here: http://www.atheistlloyd.com/Debunking/Evil.html#Note1  RETURN