There are no good arguments for atheism

I am unconcerned with zing. You may state this any way you like.

The One True Reality as it Truly Is.

The Ultimate Reality.

This is not the same thing as a truth, a fact, a contingent existence, or any other transient reality.

Can you say, "The Ultimate Reality exists"?

Bet you won't.

Well there are true things and untrue things and those things which are true do not depend on dome other factor they are simply true. Of course the truth or falsehood of many things are as yet undetermined by humans. We can only say things are true if we have determined them to be true. Otherwise we are by definition making an argument from ignorance. I thought you wpuld like that since it is a tautology.

I'm honestly not sure.

I can say it, it doesn't mean it's true.

I can say pink unicorns nest in your kitchen, it doesn't mean it's true.

So you can't say "The Ultimate Reality exists"?

You're not sure? Perhaps, I can help. Mopac is a one dimensional evangelist with a one track mind who not only doesn't care what anyone here thinks, but will openly insult them, which he has done on many occasions to you. Yet, he hasn't been banned which means trolls like him are welcome here, while on other forums where there is a keen interest in having intelligent discussions (which I assume you're looking for) he would have been long gone. Yet, here you are engaging him.

This would show the abysmal nature of this forum and how badly it's run in that Mopac is the best you can do for intellectual discussion.

See how very sad that is?

You can fling all the insults you want, but no one else has done a better job exposing you atheists for what you really are.

Deceived deceivers trying to drag everyone down into nihilism.

None of your pseudo intellectual bullshit works on me, and I know what you are doing too well to be tricked into arguing on your terms.

Lets keep it to the fundamentals.

None of you atheists can admit that. there is ultimate reality, which means that none of you can admit that anything is real. What that means is that absolutely nothing you build off of this foundation can stand. The lot of you build a house on quicksand.

Foolish posturing of foolish men who in their pride would go so far as to question reality itself in order to justify their own wickedness. 

But there is a way out. It's very simple. Sin no more, repent from your wickedness, and humble yourselves before THE TRUTH.

As you can see by Mopac's response, he is everything I described.  You engage him and anyone coming here to check this place out will run for the hills when they see this, because they also know Mopac is the best they'll ever be able to do here with intellectual discussion.

I'll take the compliment.

Mopac is not the best I can do. Thank you for helping me realize that. 

I assumed you would be looking for something better than Mopac, but unless he's gone, you won't find many will be staying here to offer it.

Translation

"Whenever we talk to Mopac, we make ourselves look like idiots. Better find some jobbers and straw men to talk to in order to make ourselves feel smarter. Maybe we can prey on someone who is weaker in faith, and confuse them with our rhetoric and sophistry, because it all falls apart with this guy."

You'd think that eventually the lot of you would develop some sense and abandon your nihilism, but nah. Take the easy route as usual, losers.

I'm not the one debating with people that reality doesn't exist.

You are clearly the crazy one.

Really, what do you hope to accomplish?

If you ever accomplish anything, it will be the abandoning of your abominable superstition.

Atheism doesn't need good arguments, bad arguments defeat godist arguments.

The Ultimate Reality exists.

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about.

Anyone who says otherwise and does know what they are talking about is CRAZY.

Better repeat that again, we didn't get it the first thousand times you told us.

I think the more logical "god" would be a pantheistic type of entity. Deism would still be a creator god and there is no evidence for that type of god. But pantheism, everything is god, is probably the most likely platform. The reason i say that is bc one we can't prove everything and everyone isn't one... i mean, where do i end and something else starts. So non-duality would be an implication of a pantheistic platform. Plus, other evidence, spiritual experiences, would be more of a manifestation of a non-dual type platform working through us and randomly interacting with this world. Furthermore things like souls and anything having to do with your brain shutting down would be most logical if that energy becomes a part of everything when it leaves the body. Of course i know you are skeptical of this, but just wanted to point out deism has its flaws and i would put the most stock in a oneness type of platform where everything would be, if you'd prefer to call it, god. I prefer calling it source since god presuppose a who... i don't think it would be an entity that is any one person or thing... it would be everything simultaneously. Out of all my searching and analyzing platforms... this seems most likely to me and the hardest platform to disprove.

What is the practical observable difference from my perspective between a deistic god, a pantheistic god such as the one you describe and no god(s)? 

You're asking for "your" perspective and there really is no difference if that is how you see it. They would all be the same. But, if you systematically think of each platform... you can separate the more likely platforms from the less likely. Merely people having spiritual experiences, lets say are true, would point towards a spiritual platform that can interact with this world. Just that would put deism lower than other platforms. But it's up to you to use your own logic to peer into these platforms. If you don't care bc none of them, by your standards have evidence, than that is your perspective and i can't change it. I can only point out what i've found and hope you can see it too. You have to look beyond your own perspective to dissemble platforms you naturally don't believe in. Bc each platform, if true, would have implications. I would suggest to start there in imagining what the implications would be and which of them line up the most with our perceived world. I would say you have to think beyond your perspective to see these platforms as just another system.  

Personal testimony is quite unreliable. This is not an opinion it is a testable scientific fact. Personal testimony is not substantive evidence because of the nature of personal testimony not because of my personal feelings.

I'm a paralegal... i'm well aware of personal testimonies unreliability. However, you are taking it to its extreme. Not "all" personal testimony is unreliable. You are saying everyone that has had spiritual experiences is unreliable. I find that to be quite close minded and i don't mean offense by that.. it's just what it is. That is the perspective you need to transcend that you are stuck in. It's not the only perspective, nor is it right (or wrong in a bigger picture). I for one know my testimony isn't unreliable and if it is... there is little chance it is. And i am by far not the only person that has had experiences. There are likely millions of others. To say every single on is unreliable... I'm sorry, i don't buy it.  

Edit: In addition, i forgot to address, by what it is... it cannot be tested by our current scientific method bc it isn't repeatable. There is no way to test it to say it's fact. It's only fact that are science can't test for it (i should add 'currently').  

Witnesses under scientific scrutiny give verifiably unreliable testimony recalling events in ways suggested by others rather than by actual events. Your memory is not a recording it is a reconstruction. In spiritual matters people have a distinct tendency to remember "positive" evidence and forget times that their belief was not borne out. In the face of this reality I'm not sure how I can be anything other than skeptical. It is not a choice my friend. It just is.

How do you test any of my experiences that have happened randomly and without them being under my control? I can't sit here and do any of it again. That is not repeatable. People that realize others have had these experiences go into the business of fraud to pretend they can control it... they are liars and that is who science has exposed. Furthermore, you don't know if there is some guru out in the middle of nowhere that can prove it... in that sense i don't know... but i am under the impression people can't control these events. By its nature it isn't provable so bringing science into this just doesn't make sense, right now. 

You are right and wrong about how people categorize events they have witnessed. Not everyone remembers as you said. Again you are generalizing. In my practice, we know what type of events in accidents are hard to remember and we choose to go with the testimony that is hard to mistake. People tend to remember something that happened in a string of events and that was profound. That is more vivid than seeing a car accident for a split second and recalling that memory. There are differences and you are only concentrating on the types of memories that are prone to error. Not all are like that. So again you saying people that have had spiritual experiences are in error, there are thousands that are not... but not even that... what you aren't getting is that only one person's claim needs to be true, just one.    

In the end you staying skeptical isn't something i can tell you that you're wrong in. You haven't witnessed anything therefore are working with zero evidence which would naturally make you skeptical of others claiming such things. All i can say is i ultimately think you are wrong and give you my logic in why. If you choose to not accept it than that's just you and your perspective. I'm not here to help you transcend your perspective only to tell you there are other ones so it's up to you to try and see why.