Dear John, the armchair philosopher,
I don't think you could have hoped for four better responses than offered above. They're all quite deliberate and well-informed. Nevertheless, I find it
interesting that you single out the atheist argument as the weakest based on an entirely illogical conclusion.
In most theist arguments the debater will try and prove the reasons for their belief. Which is quite a challenge for those that depend heavily on religious text. But the Atheist argument seems to have no evidence of their own.
Your first error is by conflating proof of 'reasons for their belief' with evidence for their belief. They're two different goals.
If I were to put it into a syllogism it would be something like this
X: For theists, the Bible is evidence of God's existence.
Y Atheists don't have their own version of the Bible, or believe in any religious text
Therefore, atheists have no proof or evidence that God doesn't exist
You seem to be implying that having a religious text is reasonable "proof" for supernatural claims, and therefore not having or believing in a religious text is tantamount to having no evidence. That's a False Equivalence right there. One doesn't need to argue from a special book or text to dismiss an improbable or extraordinary claim. As both Carl Sagan and 'Hitchens' Razor' informs us, respectively: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or, What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
X is both a fallacy of Special Pleading, and an Appeal to Personal belief. While it may be true that some theists believe the Bible to be irrefutable evidence of God's existence, it is only true to those who believe it. Dr. Bo provides an apt example of a Special Pleading as such:
"Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is astrology."
He goes on to write:
Explanation: It has been said that one’s superstition is another’s faith. The standard of superstition has been defined by the person and violated by astrology. However, while the person in the example rejects all other sources of superstition using certain criteria, the superstitious belief of their preference is exempt from these criteria."
All you need to do is replace astrology with the Bible and apply it to your question. "Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is the Bible."
Just because some believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and therefore proof of His existence does not make it true.
But the Atheist argument seems to have no evidence of their own
Why? Because they have no Bible? I think we've established they don't need one, and two, a religious text is neither evidence nor proof of anything. It may be a reason to believe, but it is not proof or evidence in any shape or form that God exists. Therefore not having or believing in a religious text does not mean there is no evidence to support the atheist view.
Apart from all of this there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that while there may or may not be a Supreme Creator, scientists have presented overwhelming evidence through evolution by natural selection and across a wide array of scientific disciplines that having a divine creator is not only a messy proposition, it is totally unnecessary for creation.