One can only differentiate the philosophical bearings between theism and atheism by the fortitude of their own arguments. While theistic arguments are based upon thousands of years of theological and philosophical inquiry, atheistic arguments are based upon recent memes spawned by the internet and pop philosophers such as Richard Dawkins.
One of the more popular (and insipid) memes is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The argument goes that, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, neither does God. Now anyone who has not had their intellectual faculties warped by such screeds as The God Delusion could see that this argument is flimsier than lemon gelatin on a hot summer porch. Essentially, the argument barrels down to: “Derp! This imaginary creature that I just pulled out of my plot does not exist; therefore, your God, whose existence has historical, traditional, and philosophical precedent, does not. Checkmate, Christians!"
StateOfDaniel obliverates the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme (along with other insipid memes such as Pink Unicorns) in his recent video:
The fact that I am sitting here talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorns is a testament to the detrimental effect that the New Atheism Movement has on intellectual and respectful conversation. I think it's extremely sad that there's a mock atheist cult that feels the need to parody religion just to make a statement against God, which it fails at doing.Indeed. Romans 1:20 explains that nature makes God's existence so obvious that atheists are without excuse. So what does it say when an entire generation easily falls prey to such flimsy atheistic arguements such as "If God answers prays, why are there amputees?" or "If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock he cannot lift?" when anyone with a remote understanding of theology can recognize these as arguments from ignorance?