Oh look, another supernaturalist has turned up to unload the contents of his soiled intellectual nappies on the forum. This is going to be so much fun to subject to the usual well-deserved treatment ...

The atheist

And there's your first mistake straight out of the gate, namely, the tiresome and entirely predictable supernaturalist caricature of homogeneity of atheists. Said caricature being pounded into a bloody pulp by the observable data, available in quantity, to the contrary.

has already determined that their is no supernatural realm

Correction, we've determined, in accordance with the rules of proper discourse, that the assertions on this subject by you and your ilk have zero support from any proper quarter, be it reliably obtained observational data or error-free deduction in a properly constituted, rigorous formal system. As a corollary, your assertions are safely discardable. The moment someone provides proper support for assertions about the supernatural, we'll take note.

and any evidence you present will always be labeled as unsatisfactory or inconclusive because it doesn’t fit their definition of evidence.

That's because made up shit isn't evidence. Which is all you and your ilk have ever had. That, and repeated parroting of the very self same mythological assertions that are the claims requiring support via external corroboration.

If proper, rigorous academic disciplines accepted made up shit the same way supernaturalism does, they would not BE rigorous academic disciplines by definition, and would be wallowing in the same fatuous state of anti-consilience that affects supernaturalism.

The atheist claims to be a scientist

Wrong. What we actually claim, is that we paid attention to what actual scientists have presented to us. Do learn the elementary concepts, before making a spectacle of yourself on a globally accessible public medium.

However, it so happens that some of the people I've circulated among in the past are proper tenured scientific researchers. Who would be happy to subject your drivel to the treatment it deserves in their spare time. I might invite one or two of them to do just that.

but doesn’t throughly [sic] examine his/her beliefs.

Bullshit. What part of "testing assertions to destruction" do you not understand as an essential part of any proper discoursive activity? Which you'll find happens here with reliable regularity. But don't let this stop you from your blatant and mendacious act of supernaturalist projection of your own inadequacies onto us, it's never stopped your ilk in the past ...

The atheist will say that logic/reasoning is how they determine what is true

That's because some of us learned what this actually IS, and how to apply it.

despite there being any way to scientifically test logic/reason as the best or only way to determine truth.

How about, IT FUCKING WORKS? Which was established 23 centuries ago by Aristotle? That's before we factor in more modern developments, such as those by Boole and Quine.

The atheist is absurd.

Wrong. All the absurdities around here are manifestly the product of mythology fanboys like you.

One atheist was unable to reconcile that human consciousness exists apart from the human body

Oh really? When was this established on a rigorous basis? Paper citations?

in face of clear evidence of it being true

When was this presented again? Don't recall this appearing in any of the peer reviewed neuroscience literature, which would be the proper place to report any evidence of this sort ...

as a result, the atheist denied the existence of human consciousness.

Hmm, looks like we're into "anecdote being peddled as data" time again, a familiar part of the supernaturalist aetiology ...

I believe his name was Daniel Dennett.

Here's a clue for you. Don't post lies about famous individuals whose work is in the public domain and eminently checkable. Dennett doesn't "deny" the existence of human consciousness at all, which is your first demonstrable lie. In several of his works, as you would know if you had actually READ them, he presents a theory of consciousness based upon neuronal data processing. The Multiple Drafts Model is essentially a data processing model, and represents consciousness as merely another Turing machine in operation within the neurons of the brain.

Another atheist once said if there is a world that exists beyond nature it’s probably just more nature.

Let me guess ... another simplistic and misleading caricature of actual atheist thought, like the previous one?

One atheist was explaining how something can come from nothing

Citation for this? Only we're used to supernaturalists making shit up here, as you've just been exposed doing with Dennett's work above.

while attributing the properties of something to complete nothingness.

Again, citation for this?

Atheist deny the existence of God

Bullshit. First of all, what we actually say on the matter, is that no supernaturalist assertions on the subject have ever been provided with proper support, therefore those assertions are, in accordance with the proper rules of discourse, safely discardable.

But we're used to supernaturalists pretending that their caricatures of our thought constitute the reality, without bothering with the inconvenience of actually asking us what we think, as you've just done straight out of the gate here, with the hubris and mendacious presumption that is typical of your ilk.

Indeed, I am on public record here as welcoming evidence pointing to the existence of a god-type entity, on the basis that when it arrives, it will falsify all of the stupid, pre-scientific mythologies fanboys like you cling to. Indeed, I've exercised a fair bit of diligence here with respect to examining the god concept, including contemplating ideas that you and the rest of the complacent mythology fanboys were incapable of even fantasising about. I'll let you do your own homework finding out about this, just to see if you actually bother to exert some diligence yourself.

While I regard the existence of a god-type entity in its most general form as an unanswered question (as does everyone here with respect for discoursive rigour), one idea we can enjoy much certainty about, is that the fatuous and absurd candidates for the role asserted to be thus in pre-scientific mythologies can be safely tossed into the bin, on the basis of their being replete with absurdity, paradox and internal contradiction. That's before we consider the manner in which pre-scientific mythologies have their provenance as purported sources of "knowledge" roundly flushed around the U-bend by the presence of assertions contained therein, that are not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd.

In short, if there is a god out there, it won't be one of the risible mythological ones. Yours included.

yet they believe in morality,justice, and love

No, these aren't matters of "belief", these are matters of observational data. We have a wealth of observational data to draw on with respect to these concepts, and human application thereof in the case of the first two. Do learn the elementary concepts at work here. We leave "belief" to mythology fanboys like you.

which are Illusions that can’t be scientifically tested.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

What part of the words "observational data" did you not bother trying to understand as you slept through your classes?

If someone tells you that they love you, you can’t test their love in a lab. You have to take their word for it and place your faith in that person.

Wrong.

I love the way supernaturalists continually confuse inference from insufficent data with "faith". (See what I did there?) The two are completely separate. Faith, certainly as practiced by supernaturalists like you, consists of uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, regardless of how much data is available flushing many of those assertions down the toilet. On the other hand, humans demonstrably engage in inference from insufficient data on a daily basis. Of course, that inference is subject to modification when new data arrives. So, for example, a partner who expends effort caring for you, even when doing so incurs consdiderable personal cost to that partner, provides data reinforcing the notion that the relationship is based upon strong ties and commitment to shared well-being. A partner discovered to have been having multiple sexual affairs behind your back, on the other hand, provides data quickly refuting that notion.

Looks like you never bothered learning the elementary concepts at school, but I've seen a lot of supernaturalists who never bothered with such learning.

Which atheist have no problem doing

See above, with respect to having data to support or refute a given notion.

but they mock believers for having faith in God

That's because mythology fanboys like you have no data. That's the essential different. And no, your mythology and its assertions are NOT the data, they are the source of the claims requiring data to support. Do learn this elementary concept before making a fool of yourself here.

even though they place their faith in things to.

Bullshit. See above on inference from insufficient data, which still relies upon data supporting a postulate.

You can’t be an atheist without living in constant contradiction.

Poppycock. The only one exhibiting contradiction here is you. Oh, and I didn't have to lie about anything in order to compile this post, unlike you.

The short version of the above: fuck off until you've learned some basic honesty.

Pistós "The atheist has already determined that their is no supernatural realm and any evidence you present will always be labeled as unsatisfactory or inconclusive because it doesn’t fit their definition of evidence."

Nope, that;s a lie, and there are two l's in labelled champ, you're off to a cracking start. However by all means demonstrate the best objective evidence you can for any deity, I am breathless with anticipation.

Pistós The atheist claims to be a scientist but doesn’t throughly examine his/her beliefs.

Nope, another lie, and you have no clue what beliefs an atheist holds until they tell you, so you can't even master reading a simple word definition, is it stupidity or dishonesty? I'm smelling troll here.

Pistós "The atheist will say that logic/reasoning is how they determine what is true despite there being any way to scientifically test logic/reason as the best or only way to determine truth."

Another lie, logic is just a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, and it's successes are manifest objective evidence of the veracity of its methods. Why do theists not seem to know they can Google these facts?

Pistós "The atheist is absurd."

Atheists are illogical? You just contradicted your previous rant where you said they use logic.

Pistós "human consciousness exists apart from the human body

Be a dear, and demonstrate some objective evidence for that bizarre fantasy.

Pistós "Atheist deny the existence of God,"

Nope, I am an atheist and I don't deny the existence of any deity anymore than I deny the existence of invisible unicorns, I simply don't believe in things for which insufficient or no objective evidence can be demonstrated.

Pistós "they believe in morality,justice, and love which are Illusions that can’t be scientifically tested. "

Wrong again, the first two are words we use to explain actions and behaviours, the word love describes a physiological condition, and of course there is evidence it exists, and though of course you can't be certain that someone who says they love you does in fact love you, there is usually some evidence they do. So you are the new ferguson, wrong on everything in just about every context. Anyone else smelling a sock puppet account?

Pistós "You can’t be an atheist without living in constant contradiction."

Again this is demonstrably false, but more importantly how does this remotely evidence your superstitious fantasy that a deity exists?

"human consciousness exists apart from the human body in face of clear evidence of it being true"...

That's a lie. This isn't name calling, but you're lying.

"Atheist deny the existence of God, yet they believe in morality,justice, and love which are Illusions that can’t be scientifically tested."

I won't say you're lying here, but you're grossly mistaken.

Morality is fluid, and the theist's "morals" are frightening because it is so. Next week it'll be moral again to take the children down to the town square to watch the church leaders torture and burn some heretics and witches.
You come up with endless ways to get around following all the rules and injunctions in your holy books, to avoid admitting that the reason you don't stone women who aren't virgins at their wedding night, is because we won't let you.

Our ethics are objective, provable, backed by science. We know that slavery is wrong for provable facts, not because a new revelation from the preachers says so.
We know that murdering someone because the preacher says they caused the plague or crop failure is wrong, for provable objective reasons.

@Noboby in particular

A buddy of mine sent this meme to me. Now, I do not know for certain if it is true, and (to be blunt) I'm not about waste my time reading through the entire bible to find out. Be that as it may, I did take a moment to remind him that actions speak louder than words. And even if Jesus never actually SAID, "I love you," there must have been PLENTY of things he DID to SHOW how much he loves us. For instance, that whole turning water into wine thing he does. Hey, if THAT doesn't practically SCREAM, "I love you," then I don't know what does.... (Okay, sure, I would prefer beer or a good rye whiskey. But beggers can't be choosers, right?)