I'm a nursing student with an education that covers the basics of chemistry, physics (hs level), microbiology, anatomy, psychology, history (world and US), government, math (though calculus), english (advanced) and ethics (301).
I do not have any degrees (yet) and as I mentioned I am working on a degree to get my license as a practicing RN.
I'm an atheist.
What all this boils down to is that I do not have a degree in physics, evolutionary biology or theology. I do not have the time or the energy to study religion as much as I did when I was a budding atheist and I certainly don't recall all of what I learned off the top of my head because it's been pushed either out of my memory or buried with the other random information knocking about in my long term memory.
I find it interesting that many times when theists find out that I don't believe in g0d they begin firing questions about physics/biology. They want me to have specific answers off the top of my head to counter their poorly worded questions that show they don't understand evolution or natural laws in the slightest; e.g. "There are laws of physics so who made the laws?!" Why don't they do their own research and answer the questions themselves?
What really pisses me off about these conversations start out sounding like something I might not have heard before and sucker me into listening because I am always on the lookout for information that might prove me wrong. After a bit of discussion it usually becomes clear they are using cosmological or telelogical argumentation but they're just dressing it up. They will tell me that's not the argumentation they're using but what does this sound like?
"Something can't come out of nothing!"
"The universe works so perfectly it can't be an accident!"
Occasionally they thow in ontology and moral law arguments but those are usually supplemental as even most theists seem to recognize neither line of reasoning leads to anything resembling proof of a deity.
What really cracks me up is that they expect me to have more information about their extraordinary claims than they do. They expect me to prove something doesn't exist and because I clearly tell them that I can't logically do that they crowe at their triumph over the ignorant atheist. Then when asked to provide their own proof they fall back on "faith" and fuzzy arguments from design or first-cause.
In other news I got a 96% on my final exam and a 93% on my final paper. Hooray for me!