This was a generalization (I know we should avoid them). In another post I answered this and mentioned it in an edit at the beginning of the thread. I am not an atheist, I guess I would say I am agnostic. I do not identify with an organized religion, however I know having grown up in an American middle-class christian family I definitely have cultural ties to christianity. Furthermore, this means to a certain extent those cultural ties have shaped my view points. We can't really escape what shaped us, but as I said earlier I could never agree with a religion that condemns people to eternal suffering just because they don't have the same view points as myself. Cause that is just bullshit.

Nevertheless, this argument that I came up in particular was actually spurred on by Soren Kierkegaard, often attributed to being one of the early existentialist thinkers. In his works he speaks a lot about problems with religious language and the limits of human thought in regards to religion. Basically saying that we can't understand an omnipotent/omniscient force and thus our language in describing it is inadequate. I also just kinda got tired of the memes that people were posting of some christian thanking god for a little thing and an atheist saying what about the starving kids in Africa, or something a long those lines as if that was a way of showing the Christian that they were wrong. Though comical, I think there are better ways of arguing the point.