"A. What is the compelling need to prove that a god exists? To be a true atheist, there should necessarily exist a compelling need to prove a god does not exist. I see no compelling need for either."

There is indeed no "compelling need" to arrive at either theism or atheism. Faith in one or the other is simply a natural cognitive reaction to considering the question. As for any burden-of-proof on this question, it's not unreasonable to hold that such a burden lies on those that posit such an entity exists, at least when said entity is posited as the "first cause" reason for observable phenomena.

That could be said to imply that atheism is a default state in this matter, but I don't hold that to be the case. Burden of proof is an artifact of logical argumentation, and it doesn't mean that negation of the assertion is a priori until demonstrated otherwise.

"Just because god doesn't always meet our expectations of what we expect of him doesn't mean he doesn't exist."

I concur, but having issues with various aspects of God as presented absolutely is a valid influence towards non-belief. The classic "problem of evil" and the frankly weak and often convoluted apologetics offered in theistic response can quite reasonably suggest to someone that there may well be no such entity. Personally, given the capricious and arbitrary nature of God as presented by the Judeo-Christian tradition, I find that atheism provides me less worry and stress.