Again, fcuk that or saying "more intelligent people know better" insinuating that I am not intelligent.

To put it bluntly, what you said was idiotic. You are implying that we give up, because it is impossible for us to learn how magnets and tornadoes (among other things) work. You also seem to magically know that they have no physical explanation, despite your complete absence of a degree or any research in the field.

A. You claim that one day mankind will understand and "know" all of the that unknowns everyone seeks; this is completely wrong and bullshit and arrogance. You're very boastful about the scientific method.

With enough time, why would they remain unknown? It is not wrong, bullshit, or arrogance. You are the one claiming to know that there are no explanations for magnets and tornadoes, even though you lack a degree or research in the field. To claim knowledge in a field you know nothing about; now that is true arrogance.

The scientific method is the most reliable method to the truth, and it produces results. Show me a better method.

You claim there is always a physical explanation for everything. Once again you're wrong if you think one day a religious or spiritual person can show to the world their god in physical form.

I claimed that I believed that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. And I do not think a religious or spiritual person can show to the world their god in physical form, because I do not believe a higher being exists. I see no evidence for one.

If the christian god exists, and he is a benevolent being, I believe he will judge me on my merits and not on something as superficial as blind faith. Belief in god should take a backseat to good deeds and bad deeds.

And if god values belief in him more than good or bad deeds then he is a conceited God who cares more about belief in Him than the good or bad deeds of his "creation".

If there is a person who lacks belief in god, but does good deeds like donates to charity, volunteers to rebuild a community after a hurricane, does community work, but this person lacks belief in god. When he dies, Christians say he will go to hell for lack of belief in god despite the minimal amount of bad, and tremendous amount of good he did in the world.

If there is a person who believes in god, but gets involved in a gang, gets in fights all the time, does tons of drugs, is an arms dealer, eventually kills a bunch of people, then rapes a girl, then gets convicted on all of those charges and goes to prison. Well in prison he asks Jesus for forgiveness and feels genuine regret for his past deeds. He dies and meets God/Jesus who says "well, you did lots of bad stuff, but at least you believed in me and you genuinely felt bad about raping that girl or murdering that family, you get to go to heaven!".

You see, I have a problem with this line of thinking. As I said before, a benevolent God will judge you based on your merits, not on something as superficial as belief in Him.

Have you ever considered that's the point of faith?

Yes, but this is a foolish way of thinking. To believe in something, without evidence. Tell me, why do you do this with arguably the most important subject in your life?

Say for example, BillyBobJonesJr down the street builds a bridge. No license, no credentials, no degree, no knowledge of engineering. He asks you to test his bridge, there is a 5000 foot drop beneath it. Would you test his bridge on faith alone?

If you did, you died.

Why do people require bridge and buildings to pass inspection and prove their safety and reliability? Why is it that we require this evidence based approach when writing building codes? It's because we cannot have something as foolish as "faith" dictating these safety and reliability guidelines.

So we use the less useful "evidence based" approach for things of lesser importance. But on arguably the most important subject/question of all, we use a faith based approach. WHY???

If faith is somehow better than evidence, why do we use faith for god, and evidence for real life stuff???

Faith is "take my word". Evidence is "don't take my word, look at it yourself". I believe the second approach is superior to the first approach.

(When I say "we", I am referring to religious people or most of man kind)

Have you ever thought for a second that this "god" or the unknown, chooses to not show itself so that people can have faith or not;

Of course I have. I am not new to this topic. This is you merely making God an unfalsifiable theory. I could similarly come up with a magic toaster that evades all scientific detection, and insist on its existence and it would be just as valid as your God that can avoid all scientific detection. We make no progress this way.

You have lost your faith because you feel the scientific method a "better" way for yourself to understand the truth.

I got rid of faith because I realized it was a fools choice. Evidence based reasoning is the way to go.

And I have not lost my faith because (for one reason), I feel the unknown is not knowable for a reason, and that reason is unknowable

Do I even need to call it? Logical fallacy via Circular reasoning. "The unknown is unknowable and the reason for that is unknown."

one reason why I believe and you lost faith is because you believe so dearly with what your eyes can see and what you can feel, or simply what the scientific method can show your mind.

What our senses can show us, along with what the scientific method can show us, has produced many results, inventions, theories, and ideas. What has blind faith given us that can trump all the progress of science?

The difference between you and I is simply faith in the "higher power"

I agree. I see no evidence of a higher power, therefore I do not believe. I assume (feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong) you see no evidence for a higher power, yet you still believe.

However, where science fails I believe in a higher power, for many reasons, however in this context, I believe in a higher power because I know without a doubt, science will never understand nor see all that it seeks to understand and know.

So then "God" to you is just whatever science currently cannot explain? So...today you think that tornadoes and magnetism is unexplained and that its god doing it or some other supernatural explanation. If science came up with explanations for both of them tomorrow, what would you say?

I don't think you realize the full scope of the problem here. God then becomes just a God of the gaps. This just becomes a moving goal post. Because when one gap is filled, you will say "well, that gap didn't count. Let's look at the other x amount of scientific gaps. Those ones will surely never be explained". And then they get explained x amount of years later.

I do not need to answer any of your questions. Besides, as much as I enjoy this site and its structure, I do not believe that I must pertain to the specific method and organization that you seek

You are correct, you do not need to answer any of my questions. I'll take it that you concede defeat on the points you did not address of mine.

In other words, I will answer any questions however way I choose. You use the "bold user and respond accordingly" method. I use the "random response accordingly" method

You may answer however you choose. I use my method because it makes is abundantly clear which portion I am responding to for both myself and whoever I am debating. With your debate format, I must go back and look at my response to figure out what you were responding to exactly. My way helps both participants of a debate. Your way helps yourself.

I spent 50 minutes typing this....:/