More graffiti. I feel like I'm feeding the troll.
I cant wait to get my lesson on how a snowflake is like consciousness
They aren't alike, but if they actually were, I'm sure you'd accept the lesson with an open mind.
Its pretty easy to understand that when complex systems interact you are bound to get something like consciousness.
I'm glad it's easy for one of us. If you're really that smart, try explaining it. Show that you have the requisite intellectual humility to have assimilated your opponents argument well enough to spit it back at him. Mocking aside, I wish you'd make the attempt.
We dont know exactly how it happened. All we know for certain is that it was random and blind.
That's your strawman.
Whats really obvious here is that the atheist defends no beliefs
Atheists defend beliefs all the time. That's another strawman. The beliefs they won't claim certainty towards, such as one of many hypotheses for the origin of the universe, are beyond our ability to know at this time. You mock people for not claiming confidence for ideas that do not warrant confidence.
because he claims in the end to be a humble agnostic after first arguing like an anti-theist.
Only because the theist thinks he's got the right hypothesis, regardless of everything else. If half the world were zealotous followers of transpermia, I'd argue against them just as strongly. Not because I have the answer, but because their position is unjustified. The justified position is that we don't know.
The agnostic atheist has no beliefs
What's this, the sixth time you've repeated this same line? I have beliefs, including some beliefs that I'd die for. Why the hell doesn't this click? Stop preaching this false straw man.
Not having anything objective to hang their hats on, new atheists eventually are cornered by their own beliefs
They would be cornered, sure, if your straw men were real. Your issue with atheists is the ontologically positive claim. Theists suffer from the same, an ontologically positive claim. Why attack atheism for the same crime as theism? If they are guilty, so are you.
Men like Flew and Russel (two of the most notoriously aggressive atheists who ever lived) in the end attested to atheisms' inability to survive as a coherent depiction of reality.
An in your confirmation bias, you give these two men more credence than hundreds of other brilliant men with opposite opinions. Atheism doesn't depict reality. Philosophical naturalism depicts reality. It is coherent, and it is atheistic. But the two are not identical. One is a component of the other.
What ultimately turns me off about atheism is its brazen dishonesty and arrogance.
If atheism is dishonest, then so is theism. If atheism is arrogant, then so is theism. The fault is mirrored. The real issue you have is that most atheists are agnostic atheists. You simply can't stand the fact that a strong stance isn't taken. Not that a strong stance is justified, but it leaves you without anything to attack. So you fabricate strawmen post after post.