I think most atheist arguments are poor.
It's a simple burden of proof, and let me say this straight, most of the time the real reason is "because I want to". At a personality level both the believe of god and the lack of it, gives the person the sense of "knowing", and with that notion is easier to travel the path of living. Some people find the lack of a god comforting in the meaning that we are what we are and we get what we get. Some religious people also feel the same, but think of a non interventionist god that is so interventionist that is basically the same if it didn't exist. And some people find the believe in a god comforting.
For me is very simple to be atheist, simply because "god" is such a bullshit term that encompass "everything" and means nothing (and needs to be painstaking-timeconsuming endeavor to address in individual matters).
We are fucking thrown into the world that is full of danger, and aware of our mortality, different people cope with it by different means.
Oh ok, yeah I was more thinking in the context of the big ol image of "imagine no religion" in my face scrolling down the page.
I do think that no religious societies can exist, look at countries, you follow the rules (law) not because there's a god, but because it's tacitally agreed that they're in place to benefit you while not benefitting any/everybody else. Even if you don't believe that the state can/will guarantee that, there are institutions set in place to enforce those rules, and you can take a gamble on it.
Saying burden of proof is all you need is an example of the lack of humanization in many atheist circles. They just see theists as a target to show their intellectual superiority. In reality, leaving it to burden of proof and not creating a foundational layer for your worldview is intellectually dishonest as it is lazy.
But you're right. The burden of proof does lay upon us. This doesn't excuse bad, emotional arguments - from either side, I may add. But the burden of proof doesn't mean you've "won" the argument and even that you're right. It just makes the debate more lop-sided.
But it's funny you mention the burden of proof when humans have a natural capacity to search and seek God. Even atheists do this. I'm not even talking about this from a religious perspective. It was mentioned earlier how many atheists still have views that clash with their lack of belief. It's almost like we as a species are driven to seek this entity - whatever it is.
It's also funny you mention how we're thrown in to a harsh world. This is in no way an argument against religion, especially since it remains the core of so many religions, especially Christianity. And no, I disagree about our morals. We tend to know what is moral and betray our own morality. We know it's wrong to hate, but it's easy to hate. Humanity is completely inconsistent regarding its morals, and most of that cruelty you mentioned is man-made: war, rape, abuse, poverty. We could solve world hunger and poverty right now if we wanted to, but we won't. Because man is broken and betrays his universal morality. This is the core of Christianity.
As for your response to Unholy Bible, I'm not sure what good you think a society without religion would do. Only 7% of the worlds wars are started due to religion. It would be naive, especially after the 20th century, to think that getting rid of religion would solve anything, especially since that very century showed how powerful and good a force religion is and can be (civil rights movement for instance). Today's social movements are predicated upon a foundation of secularism and yet they treat humanity as nothing more than labels. You're a snowflake if you're a Trump supporter; you're a racist/misogynist/whatever if you're not. In all of this, we have forgotten the Golden Rule and this truly shows what a secular society can achieve: a society where everyone is all about getting theirs and nothing more. I personally find the shallowness of today's society to be endemic to its secularism; religion stands as the one alternative.