Turning the tables on atheism

[LadyForCamus]

@Klorophyll

If I say proposition X is true, and you offer counter arguments A, B, and C, and in response to your counter arguments I say, “meh, I believe X is true anyway,” my persistent belief is irrelevant to the quality of either the original proposition or your counter arguments. If you take issue with a specific argument against the god proposition, you need to identify the problem and describe it. You need to give a reason why it’s flawed. 

Further, you should know by now that even if every existing argument against god is in some way flawed, your belief is still not rationally warranted. My inability to present a compelling counter argument to your claim in no way bolsters the likelihood that it’s true. You still bear that burden of proof.

I am not sure to whom you're writing this, since I wasn't arguing for the existence of God in the first place. It's not because I am a Muslim that any thread I ever make should be about God's existence. The argument here is less ambitious: It's more probable than not

How did you determine this probability? What was your method?

I already explained why this is not an argumentum ad populum, these large crowds of theists are capable of rational thinking

That’s an assertion. How have you determined that these large crowds are not only capable of rational thinking with regard to their belief,  but that they are actively applying rational thinking to it? If your answer is simply the sheer number of them then not only is that indeed an ad populum fallacy, but your entire argument is circular. I mean, you are making an example of yourself in this very thread of at least one theist who is not applying sound reasoning. Your own argument undercuts itself. That’s fairly impressive, lol.