These are four good points well made. Do the fact that you find it necessary to say them, mean that atheism is trying to define itself on a negative which no one has much hope of proving. I think that it is necessary to say "I am an atheist" as a mark on your journey of thinking towards a more useful label (which is removable/replaceable) and is based on a more positive outlook.

I understand the need for nuance, but I think he's being a bit hard nosed and arrogant about what he is saying. I just have to object or comment a little bit about his statements. I admit to being opinionated when it comes to religion, but I'm generally respectfully nice about it to my religious friends. Maybe this guy is more sympathetic toward religious folks because he use to be religious. I don't have a history of being super religious in my youth, I was always a skeptic. My rebellion came from people trying to push religion on me, when I was already free of it.

I believe we are all born without a belief in god/s. This to me is what an atheist is, so this argument is about semantics. Some folks might feel a sting to be told they were born an atheist, because they feel it's an insult, but to some of us the word atheist could be a word of purity, before being a person is immersed in religion, and/or also when a person comes out of religion, by knowing it and rejecting it. Not having a belief in something doesn't necessarily mean you know about something and have rejected it - that's my take on it anyway.

I believe that teaching children about the religion/s that surround them in our society is important, but that teaching them that only one is the truth is a poor personal choice that some parents make. Better to say that one of the religions is best for your particular family, maybe. Another personal choice is what I did, I told my children that many of our friends and family member believe a god made the world and makes everything happen, but that we (as parents) don't really believe that story, and though we might disagree, we respect our friends and family members regarding their beliefs, as long as they respect us and our beliefs in the scientific explanation for things.

I'm not sure that people have a "natural inclination" toward theism, I feel it's more of a societal thing. Yes, supernatural gods and myths about them were created when there was very little scientific explanations for things, but we know more now.

I agree that fully reading the bible doesn't "make you an atheist" but for many of us who have been exposed to other mythologies in ancient history, reading the bible fully could solidify our doubts a bit more about Christianity, especially when compared to other similar mythologies of the time. Reading the bible AND other religious texts and comparing those mythologies (as Joseph Campbell did) can help open one's mind to the possibility that if we call 99 stories myths, and they are so similar to our own culture's myth, then maybe our own religion is simply one more mythos that has not yet been overtaken by the next mythos. Reading the bible, with either skepticism and doubt or dogmatic belief will likely move the needle one way or another.

Reason is what made me question the Catholicism I was raised with, when the nuns wouldn't answer my questions as a girl and instead whacked me on the hand for daring to question the stories. Religion begged me to put my reasoning skills aside and try to believe, but when guardian angels didn't watch out for my loved ones in their time of need, or god didn't help when someone pleaded, it was hard to believe that there is a god that would knowingly ignore such important requests for assistance. Reason prevailed for me, as it likely has for others here.

Different information? I don't understand that. Is that like alternative facts? Maybe he means spin.

Being reasonable/unreasonable or rational/irrational about religion vs other things, I totally understand. I would not subscribe myself as being more rational/reasonable than my religious friends who get a lot of comfort from religion, but there is a difference in believing something because of a religion ingrained in you versus reason learned from research and scientific findings that have become known long after the creation of the religion. Some folks think with reason, some with religion. I don't think it's unfair to point that out in some cases.

Statement 1: I agree. Not only do I not say this, and I hate to say it but some people are born inclined to religious belief. Psych studies suggest this too. The nature or nurture issue comes into play here to. It's a subject I find interesting but keep an open mind on.

Statement 2: Hardly a point worth making.

Statement 3 . Broadly agree. Well it is true that religious people are often immune to arguments of reason and evidence. The change has to come from within. Sometimes arguments from atheists can influence the religious, but not in direct debate, from my experience.

Statement 4: Who says this statement friend? No serious atheist would make a generalization like this.

Is this young man speaking purely about atheists, or about nonreligious people collectively, including agnostics?

At least his heart is in the right place.