4 random arguements for atheism.

[Ryft]

... was not offered as proof of God's non-existance.

But the non-existence of God is precisely what atheism is about—definitive proof that "God does not exist" specifically (strong atheism) or definitive proof that "God is not required" more generally (weak atheism). None of your arguments for atheism succeeded in accomplishing either aim, which my rebuttal underscored. If you assert them as arguments for atheism, then they will be evaluated accordingly. If they were simply arguments for skepticism about certain theistic claims, then you ought to brand them as such. However, skepticism is not the same thing as atheism; all four of your arguments could be presented by deists, who would not conclude with atheism. Arguments for atheism need to be incompatible with deism.

There is indeed evidence that if the brain gets damaged then this affects your memory and behavior, etc. ... I believe it is more parsimonious, and probable, to just believe they are basically the brain ...

From arguments that X (mental states) are caused by Y (brain states), it is invalid to conclude that X and Y are basically the same thing. Attempting to substantiate the belief that X and Y are ontologically the same thing by showing that X and Y are causally related is horribly invalid; in other words, one cannot draw an ontological conclusion from a causal argument. Ontological conclusions are validly produced only from ontological arguments. To show that X and Y are the same thing, you have to show that every property true of Y is also true of X and vice-versa. If some property is true of Y but not true of X (or vice-versa), then X and Y are not the same thing.