The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[marx_2012]

Perhaps it's in your nature to listen to the arguments made by others.

Define your nature and your subjective experience in an objective scientific term if we are to take you seriously! You keep stating that it must be 'your' nature without defining the term in any rational sense. Define your nature!!

Again, choice is not equal to free will.

Define the difference between choice and free will otherwise that statement is entirely irational.

Let's say we allowed such a definition though. You and I both believe we are making choices, it may all be an illusion, but as you have said, it matters very little to us in our day to day lives.

If you allow this definition then you must subscribe to his statement that your argument is an illusion as well. Otherwise define the separation between your statement and the 'illusion'. You are assuming your position without stating an argument for it.

In this sense it is a completely sterile argument. One way or the other, it simply does not matter, the effect is the same.

This is entirely your opinion without any rational backing.

This is not the sense or spirit of the argument you see presented before you by the faithful.

Also this is exactly the sense and spirit of the argument because it is relating to free will in an athiest ideology. Also there is no mention or argument relating to faith in this discussion.

If my "free will" is what I am to be judged by (and if these judgements are to be "just"), it had damn sure better exist, objectively, and demonstrably. Otherwise what we have is someone arguing capriciousness as an ultimate authority, malevolence as virtue.

There is no mention of judgement in this discussion entirely. You have presupposed your own notions of Christianity and entered them into this argument without any just reason.