i'm just gonna go in order saying which arguments i don't use or correct you if i do use something similar:
nope
nope
nope
nope
nope
nope
nope
nope
noep
this one is actually almost an argument! not that belief in a god is a complicated or supernatural occurrence. tis actually a psychological one.
nope but indoctrination is really bad no matter which way the wind blows, man.
nope though it is facetious to say we (humanity) can't understand everything. you don't know that. heehee.
nope
nurp aka nope
nope
nope
omniscience is literally impossible to obtain as an individual human, our brains literally are not big enough to store all of that potential data. so nope. though i do support the quashing of discrimination as a socially acceptable activity.
actually we just don't know what was before the big bang. if anything, the universe (via the big bang) sprung out of nothing, not nowhere. though, even that is baseless as all get out.
well this is inaccurate. the reason atheists call theists out on metaphors and symbolism is that theists also like to say some parts are literal unerring words of the christian god. at what point does something stop being a metaphor? and if the whole thing is a metaphor, then why worship the metaphorical god? it becomes less about the supernatural and more about the lifestyle it tries to promote. not sure how Ezekiel 23:19-23 has to do with anything, though. you could say "you're taking it out of context!" but that's literally what quoting something is and theists do it all the time too.
nope.
nope.
so, basically none of those are arguments i use. not sure what kinda shitty sarcastic atheists you've met and/or if you're just being sarcastic.