ok il add osme slightly more constructive comments

neway, i do not believe its possible to 'disprove' gawd, or nething else, instead the more logical approch to dealing with belief systems is analysing hte belief rather htan atempting to fight crazy magic stories and circulur logic with real logic and science

first of all people of today who werent blessed with the prevliege of seeing jebus and his numerous mircicles nor having any direct contact with gawd only hear about gawd thru people who hear it thru people why not walk back thru the chain and assess the validty of these people's claims and how stupid it would be to believe PEOPLE as a pos to anything less than seeing mircles and gawd urself?

people should focus more on why they believe something than wether or not god COULD exist, and why they should or should not believe

but as for attacking god il have a crack firstly i cant subjectivly fight the concept of an ompitiant being with out first being one, nor can i really argue agisnt an omipitant being doing say evrything the bible says such a being did.... so i wont botehr while attacking gods morality doenst disprove nething it shure raises questoins of his character if god is omipresent, then why would he doom man kind?

I agree that it's generally futile to try and prove that God exists. One can, however, argue about particular characteristics of a deity if one exists (for example, is God "good").

I disagree that it is illogical to argue against circular logic and other errors in thinking. In fact, I think that the best defense we have against the advancement of untrue ideas is to help people who have little experience in thinking through their philosophy and beliefs in a logical manner or who have beliefs that contradict themselves.

You talk about arguing against belief based on the reports of witnesses. Certainly that is a valid argument (although I would never use the word "stupid" to describe people who have belief for these reasons). However, you should be very careful about how you apply this argument, since it can easily be used against you. For example, why should you believe the reports of a scientific experiment if you haven't done the experiment yourself? I think a far better tactic would be to point out that extraordinary claims (such as miracle) require extraordinary proof, and that the kind of reports we have of Biblical miracles do not live up to that standard.

I agree that it is important for people to think about why they have belief. Reasons for belief do not tell us whether or not religion is truth, however.

I don't see how you can say that you can't argue about whether or not an omnipotent being exists because you yourself are not omnipotent. We can discuss the possibility of an infinite universe without being infinite. I agree you can't argue that an omnipotent being couldn't have made all the things in the Bible happen as written (so far as they are logically consistent). I also agree that God's morality has nothing to do with proof of His existence, but I don't understand what you mean when you say that an omnipresent God wouldn't doom mankind. To me, these are not related concepts.