Well people could argue forever if there's a god(s) or not. Just like I could hold up my fingers behind my back, and you guys could make all the arguements in the world on how many I'm holding up. So why do you guys argue when you don't know? If someone came up to me and told me I'm wearing a hat when I'm not, I could argue that, but if someone came up to me and told me that I look like I have an iPod, I couldn't argue that, because there how the fuck do I know if I look like I have an iPod, I could throw out a few things if I wanted to proving I do/do not, but there would be no point cause I honestly don't know. So if there were 2 people beside me arguing a complex physics theory, who the fuck would I be to walk in and say some random shit, when I have basic knowledge on physics, but don't know fully what's going on. There's my theory then on religion, when someone asks me if I believe in God, I don't know, if someone asks if I am religous, I don't know, there is no way to know, so why talk about something we don't know about enough?

All i know is that I would never trust a God who thought it was a good idea to have a system which is drained from the top. (Respiratory system)

All i know is that I would never trust a God who thought it was a good idea to have a system which is drained from the top. (Respiratory system)

Doesn't the entrance/exit at the top add to the overall efficiency of human design?

We would need another orifice at the base of the lungs to drain with gravity, leaving one near the top of the lungs in order to use gravity to properly swallow food.

In other possible designs, the head could be relocated, reducing the functionality of vision and hearing in order to improve the lungs' functionality by placing them where the head was, and still use the same orifice as the stomach.

Really though, could you come up with a better design than the current?

Doesn't the entrance/exit at the top add to the overall efficiency of human design?

We would need another orifice at the base of the lungs to drain with gravity, leaving one near the top of the lungs in order to use gravity to properly swallow food.

In other possible designs, the head could be relocated, reducing the functionality of vision and hearing in order to improve the lungs' functionality by placing them where the head was, and still use the same orifice as the stomach.

Really though, could you come up with a better design than the current?

Indeed. Natural Selection is hard at work at that everyday.

You are pretty much correct, but atheists notice that there are millions of such concepts which we can't KNOW the existence of. We simply say lets discard and disbelieve all of these things (the easter bunny, invisible pink unicorns, invisible magical dragon in my basement, etc). Our stance is that if there is NO evidence, support, etc for something we should simply not put any confidence into its possible existence and choose to disbelieve it. Ie, those with extraordinary claims should provide extraordinary evidence, that is, those who believe have the burden of proof.

Really though, could you come up with a better design than the current?

Sure. The eyes have unnecessary blind spots. The recurring Laryngeal nerve, doesn't have to be recurring. These are both examples of unnecessarily suboptimal design, that could easily be fixed if there truly was a designer.

If we could only argue about what we know, we couldn't argue about anything.

Without doubt, there is no REASON for argument.