I just stopped paying attention there, and will not debate with you until you realize that you are as much a damn fool as any evangelical you or anyone has ever met.
Are you aware that ignoring my arguments isn't a legitimate response in a formal debate? Refusing to read someone's posts in a debate is equivalent to shutting your ears and shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Honestly, what the **** do you expect? You are in a debate forum, but you assume that everybody is going to hold the exact same views you do, and then act shocked when you hear that I've helped other people become atheists, a viewpoint that I come here expressly to argue for. If you say that you won't debate with me until I realize my foolishness, instead of ignoring me, why not make me realize? I've been watching, from my first post in this thread, looking to see if somebody can post some actual rationalizations for a specific god. That has yet to happen. Why not try, instead of trying to convince me with bullshit like false miracles and emotions?
Hypocrite. I don't come into a debate forum so that I may get insulted for my beliefs or to argue with cocky people who assume they are correct. Realize, how the hell do we make you realize, you ask for to much you ignore any possible proof of God's existence and then claim that it is not proof but just chance, how do we argue against that? You don't look out of the box, you only look inside. We know nothing about our universe we know nothing about ourselves or even this planet yet you assume we do and that because of the pathetically small knowledge we have of our surroundings is grounds for dismissing God. Every single idea and theory can be shot down with a different point of view, but do you see that flaw in the theories. Of course not you just assume they are true because they are written in your books and scientists give a reasonable explanation to it. So who here is being close-minded.
Since you didn't provide any rationale for that statement, I will say a statement of equal significance: Broccoli. I am very confident that everything I have posted in this thread is either (1) directly related to my own views on god, and thus valid from my point of view, or (2) factually correct. I don't really care how insulting something is; if it is relevant to the topic at hand than I will bring it up. Again, we are discussing facts, not emotion. Alright. Give me 1 piece of proof for your god. It's actually the opposite. We know quiet a lot about our surroundings. Sure, the more we learn the more we discover there still is to know, but we certainly know much more than we did 2,000 years ago. We haven't made any advancements towards the dismissing of god. The difference is that the void of day-to-day knowledge that used to be filled by god is quickly disappearing, being replaced by scientific knowledge. As the methodology of science continues to be more widespread, more people will realize that religion is only believed because of it's powerful ability to indoctrinate and spread itself, not because of any factual foundation that it rests on. You cannot compare religion and science. Don't even try. The two are different at a fundamental level. Religions come to a conclusion then find facts that support that conclusion. Science finds facts and patterns in our world and creates a theory to explain that pattern.
There's a force that predetermines, a force that pushed the snowball of all things in existence down the hazy hill of time. This same force glides along, overseeing every aspect. It observes the many effects of time, how the new snow is packed onto the core, and how the old is left covered. The oblivious coatings conceal the incisive signs of birth in a dark, undisturbed truth, until no more is seen. One mark, however, still remains. The one that smears visions, yet confirms configurations. The silent figure, jogging along, restless, and ever forgiving. How you like dem' apples?
The first cause does not indicate god's existence because an effect without a cause or an effect that comes from timelessness does not have to be unique, it does not have to be one; it can be many, it does not indicate divine will and it does not show anything but "X happened". It is foolish to assume that god is responsible and shows nothing except that your definition of god shows him to be the reason, not any objective source of knowledge. You have stolen some unknown force's worth and identity and replaced it with a god who has thoughts, feelings and the other things. You have super imposed god's wrath unto a thunderstorm, you have imposed god's will on life's tragedies and you have mistaken beauty to be a component of the universe and not a component of your own mind. You do not see what is, you see what you want to see. I can't believe I missed this. Sorry aMoeba. My response: The wave function reflects our knowledge of the system. The wave function simply means that there is a 50-50 chance that the cat is alive or dead.