Hopefully this will scare off any atheist newfags from reddit who mistakenly believe they're in good company.
As a note, the burden of proof lies on the "atheist" who claims God doesn't exist or is unlikely to exist. Once it is accepted that neither of these is true, choosing God is a personal choice. The burden of proof is not on me to prove God exists because my claim is only that God doesn't necessarily not exist nor is He unlikely to exist. If you do not hold a belief about God's existence or the likelihood of His existence, you are without this knowledge and are an agnostic by definition. If you insist on calling yourself an "agnostic atheist," know that this phrase is a redundant rhetorical tautology, and thus that its usage can only be surmised to be meant to equivocate implicitly classical atheism and new "atheism."
I've also included a refutation of every atheist argument I could find.
Thread theme: youtube.com
---
First, I'm not your dictionary:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
1. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually, objectively matters.
2. Things actually, objectively matter.
3. Therefore, God exists. (modus tollens from 1)
1. If God were not to exist, the only thing that could create consciousness would be some interaction between any or all of the four fundamental forces of the universe.
2. To assume the brain is evidence that this happens is a fallacy of the single cause, i.e. it is to assume fallaciously that because the brain causes consciousness, it is sufficient for consciousness.
3. There is no evidence, empirical, mathematical, or otherwise, that any interaction between any of the four fundamental forces of the universe could possibly create consciousness.
4. Therefore, to believe consciousness is only a product of the universe is irrational.