The Problem with Atheists

Merriam-Webster says,

That sounds like it might be almost, but perhaps not quite a strawman.

Let's see if Goldtop agrees with your paraphrasing of his ideological position.

The brain is nothing more than a conductor and restrictor to the flow of consciousness, it does not create it. I can use a an electrical meter/tester to detect electrical current but that has nothing to do with the electrical source, where the current comes from only the current form and flow. I can monitor all forms of electrical surge in any given object or machinery, none of which is produced by the object or machinery, same thing with conscious activity. 

Not a straw man at all actually

I can observe animals making decisions.

Notice that Dictionaries are reference books and have no authority whatsoever other then defining words.

I can observe animals making decisions.

That's yet another claim you need to support. 

For example, empirically, one could observe two individuals calling the same dog by name.

The dog would then make a decision as to which request to honor first.

Will you supply proof that MANY atheists believe these things? Will you define many?

Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.

I do consider this statement to be false. Atheists don't always reject the supernatural. Some believe in the supernatural..just not gods. Secondly, they don't always reject the supernatural because of their understanding of science. They might object on logical grounds and physical evidence is unimportant. Lastly, they don't always "reject" these things. They may simply not believe. Any conclusion drawn from this premise is dubious.

Free will: As an atheist, I don't believe in it. If another consciousness were to be dropped into my body and live my life from start to finish I've no reason to think they would choose different paths and every reason to think the experiences of my life would inform their decisions and mould their personality to be exactly like mine. I believe Sam Harris rejects free will as well (and I probably was influenced by his argument). 

Objective reality: I'm not sure I understand this term as you do. It seems we have a reality that we share. I see no reason to doubt this. 

Infinity: I don't understand your objection here. "Infinity" is not an actual size or number, but a a place marker for something bigger than we can measure, understand, or imagine. I do believe such things exist. I don't know that infinity can be understood in a strictly literal sense though (eg.  A literal infinite universe makes no sense to me)

However, I will not belabor the point since I believe we agree that everything is technically finite.  I also have a logical proof of this if you're interested.

People often use the term infinity in illogical ways.  For instance, they might say "we have infinite choices" or "we have infinite potential" or "the universe is infinite space" or "mathematical integers are infinite".

However, I will not belabor the point since I believe we agree that everything is technically finite.  I also have a logical proof of this if you're interested.

Now we seem to be getting somewhere.

I can observe animals making decisions.

Do you believe that animals also have free will?

For example, empirically, one could observe two individuals calling the same dog by name.

The dog would then make a decision as to which request to honor first.

That is one of the silliest things I've read today. You're saying the dog made a conscious decision, that it actually thought about it. Hilarious.

People often use the term infinity in illogical ways.  For instance, they might say "we have infinite choices" or "we have infinite potential" or "the universe is infinite space" or "mathematical integers are infinite".

However, I will not belabor the point since I believe we agree that everything is technically finite.  I also have a logical proof of this if you're interested.

I'm interested. I don't see how in the most literal sense, space isn't infinite i.e. doesn't have any boundaries.  

I have met your demands to the best of my ability.

For example, if "space" was truly and absolutely infinite, there could be no planets or stars.

Planets and stars are technically the boundary of space.

As you can plainly see, God with a capital "G" in English means The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

I have met your demands to the best of my ability.

Then clearly, you haven't the ability to support your claims. Looks like you're done here.

Why would it obliterate finite existence? Are you talking about the infinite regress problem? 

For example, if "space" was truly and absolutely infinite, there could be no planets or stars.

Planets and stars are technically the boundary of space.

When a planet moves or dies, what is left over... space. There will always be space. I can see how you are saying they are boundaries to space and one can look at it as its boundary but there is always space without the planet or star there. As they are physically manifest, they are occupying space so you can call them boundaries... but all they are doing is, occupying space. One day they will die and leave more space. Interestingly, some stars that die create another form of space, i.e. black holes, but it's still space.  

The evidence we currently have strongly suggests that space and time are the same thing and they were once very very small and now they are getting larger and larger and we are approximately 50% of the way through the cycle, incidentally this makes a lot of sense because the 50% mark is the peak of the complexity curve.

From our best calculations all space and time will come to a screeching halt at the predicted heat death of the cosmos.

You can believe the universe is "infinite" if you like, but I'd be curious about why you would think that and what possible utility you believe that belief might grant.

However, what I am currently puzzled by is a person who says the only believe in empirical evidence and then tries to assert that consciousness is somehow evidence of free will.

This makes zero sense.