[Replying to post 5 by Blastcat
Well it makes total sense both from the theistic and atheistic point of view.
For if a theists truly KNOW something the atheist don't. There is no point in asking questions about something you are sure about.
I mean you would not keep asking is Ketchup, Ketchup you know it is Ketchup so there is no point making that question. And if you argue it should be made to explain it to someone who don't know what Ketchup is...or explain God to an atheist, you can simply be satisfied with that everyone consist of the same, and so has the same opportunity to KNOW there is a God, and so the reason a Atheist do NOT know there is a God is because they don't really WANT to. And you can not argue with a lack of want, and so it can be justified not asking as many questions, since the answers is supposedly known.
For the Atheists, they know the answer is NOT known and so they need the questions to find the answer they are looking for. Therefore Atheists will have less answers than Theists, but would need far more questions.
It makes logical sense from both perspectives, and I think both atheist, theist and agnostic can agree on that.
The only question which really remains in this is....do theists really know something atheists don't? If so then the theist argument wins. If not then the atheist argument wins.
It all really comes down to the existence of the spiritual or not.
If the spiritual exist, then the theistic argument is stronger since there is evidence of life beyond the material and physical, and potential answers to truth found there too, as the Holy Spirit should be a teacher of truths which is beyond the logical.
If the spiritual exist, then the theists DO know something the atheists do not because they do not have the same spiritual sensitivity.
If the spiritual do not exist, then its obvious that the theists do NOT know more, in fact they may know less.
It should also be noted though, that many theists may claim to believe in a spiritual without really having enough belief to convince them self of it, just like many atheists may believe there is no purpose, but constantly act as if there is.
From my perspective as someone who is not convinced by either argument, both arguments seems dishonest to me.
I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the spiritual DO in fact exist, so to dismiss that I think is foolish. At the same time for any one to claim any truth, intellectual or moral superiority without a current spiritual contact is arrogant and dishonest. It's pretty tough to feel wet if you are not wet, or to defend knowledge of something you have not actually experienced.