Evidence that God exists

[Tiberius]

Therefore if God exists, the only way to find out is to "ask and it will be given you", "seek and you shall find".

Unless you make an effort to percieve god, you're being unscientific. Science is perception, if you can't perceive anything, try and try again untill your perceive "something".

You make the assumption I haven't done this already. I have. I spent 9 years as a Christian, and I eventually realized that I got no answers; the answers I was receiving were from my own brain. I got no new knowledge, and the experiences I put down to "this is God" were just normal creations of the human brain.

There is no burden of proof for either side in the debate. However, the burden is on the atheist to see for themselves what all the fuss is about.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim (i.e. the theist). This is how all claims are judged in real life, so I fail to see why there is some kind of exception for claims of gods. I have tried to see what the fuss is about, but it never works. I've tried to pray and got no answer.

And if God does not exist, then you have to keep looking anyway, we aren't omniscient so we can never know for sure that God doesn't exist. If you give up, you're not being scientific.

Indeed, but whoever said I was giving up?

Therefore, atheism, is unscientific ASWELL as being irrational.

Atheism is a disbelief in gods. If you have not experienced god yet, then it is a perfectly scientific deduction to make. If science has not found evidence for something, it does not hold it as true. The same applies for atheism. Your entire argument rests on your perception of atheists' attitudes rather than atheism itself, yet you make a conclusion about atheism. This is a fallacy.

It's a bit like saying "look at democracies like America and Russia; they hold the largest armies and nukes. This means that democracy is a bad idea".

If atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in Love.

That's based on your assumption that God is love. Show your evidence! I could easily say "Everything Richard Dawkins says is love. If you don't believe everything Richard Dawkins says, you don't believe in love". It's yet another fallacy. Your claim that "god is love" is unsubstantiated, and the burden of proof on such a claim is solely on you.

If atheists don't believe in Love, and Love is the absolute moral authority, then atheists are immoral.

Based on the faulty assumption that love is the absolute moral authority, and that atheists don't believe in love. I'm an atheist and I believe in love, is this some kind of exception to your rule, or just the evidence that disproves it?

Love cannot be proven nor disproven.

Why? I'd argue that love is an emotive response mixed with something on an instinctual level, just as most emotions are. I'd further submit that science and neurology have shown us how our brains affect our emotions quite well, and that we would probably discover love to be something within the brain.

If you don't want Love, simply because it is irrational, I pity you.

I have love, I believe in love, I think love is a great emotion that humans have.

I do not believe your faulty assumption that God = love.