Yes I have seen this before, it seems to be very popular, and it, plus many people giving answers to it are circulating widely, Google it or look on Youtube you will find plenty.

There are therefore only a couple of things that I would add. Firstly that of course. The whole premise is the basic old theist mistake of thinking that atheists/agnostics have just another belief system like their own, requiring proof and justification. But not believing is not itself a belief, it is the default position, of 'none belief' which does not have a burden of proof. You can be a none believer for any reason you like, or more importantly, for no reason at all, if you wish. And you are under no obligation to justify yourself to anyone, least of all someone with an agenda. So that if you do, even to a tiny degree choose to debate with theists, you are being very kind and charitable, and those, like him, who receive kindness, should not, look the gift horse in the mouth. It is like asking someone why they don't go swimming in the winter, and then belittling them for not trying to talk you out of it, hard enough.

As for why we don't answer the good theist arguments, this just shows that he is not familiar with atheist writings himself, in exactly the same way, since he would soon find that all his so called, good arguments, are well answered. While at the same time I am quite sure that he is an atheist with regard to, Allah, Vishnu, and Buddha, yet I am also pretty sure that he has not made himself familiar with the writings of all the best Hindu and Islamic theologians etc., or he would find it hard to cling to his absolutism.

No-one has the burden to articulate why they don't believe in god. That priest can articulate all he wants, he can't prove anything. What makes a good atheist is what makes any good person.