Why must this discussion always dissolve into pink unicorns, flying teapots, lunar landings, and other such tripe? There are plenty of fairly good philosophical arguments that a smart atheist could take on if he were really interested in being reasonable. I cannot empirically prove everything I know about this world (e.g. all bachelors are married men is not an empirical truth, it's a logic truth), but I still know many of these things to be true. No theist is going to take the atheist who comes up with these silly "thought experiments" seriously enough to even consider whether his beliefs are sound. This is a beautiful example of an atheist shooting himself in the foot.
You know, like any professional teacher that works within an university, I use references to go quicker, and the invisible Pink Unicorn is just one of them, as well as the Celestial Teapot.
I don't have time to invent a completely new argument, and besides, it would be meaningless and very pretentious. Honesty requires me to acknowledge who said that first, I'm not a plagiarist. These famous thinkers already explained this way better than we probably would, and the fact that you don't want to understand what they tried to explain is rather a proof of severe lack of intellectual curiosity, and stubbornness.
And believe me
newwink
, these philosophers were very smart, even if you seem to have the opposite claim. Their "thoughts experiments" are far from being silly. Russel (for instance) was a genius, whether you like him or not.
---
So, please, just stop wasting our time, and read.
That would be a nice change.
If you really want the theist to consider the reasonableness of his position, at least have the courtesy to show him that you've attempt to understand why he believes the things he does.
Do I look like a courteous man?
Frankly, I don't care why you want to believe in something, that is your concern only, your private life, not mine.
I'm not here to convert you.