No, I'm afraid you're still wrong.

"If someone says that natural disasters are acts of God..."

Then such a person would have to provide evidence to support such a claim. If they cannot, then such a claim cannot be considered factual. Now, if such a person was unable to find evidence to support this conclusion, that doesn't mean the conclusion is invalid; it simply means this person was unable to find evidence. Now, in "debate world" you have to convince your observers the hypothesis you've put forward is legit. If you cannot supply evidence to validate your claim, you lose. It's as simple as that.

"I will honestly say that i do not know how to prove the existence of God. But that doesn't mean he can't exist."

Clearly, no one does; however that wasn't my challenge. I asked you how any particular person could prove the NONexistence of God.

How are you disputing my post? (Apparently, I need 50 characters to post, so please disregard what is in the parenheses.)

Well, if you ask me, I think religion is extremely pernicious to the advancement of our species. That being said, abolishing religion is:

1. Unconstitutional

2. Impossible

3. Immoral

If people practice their religion peacefully, I won't have qualms against them.

Incorrect. In every debate, there is an affirmative and a negative. Since the aff (affirmative) is affirming something, the burden of proof is on the aff. The neg has to refute the burden of proof and if it is, the aff has not proven their position and subsequently loses. If the aff doesn't meet the burden of proof at all, then the affirmative side doesn't have a case that can be debated. Lastly, how does one prove the nonexistence of something when that something doesn't exist? Hey, TheThinker, I say unicorns are real; prove they are not.

These are your beliefs, not ours. Prove them.

If we rewind to the 1960's, arguments against same-sex marriage were exactly like-for-like for refusing interracial marriage. This is a civil rights issue and nobody should deny any two people, gay or straight, the right to marry.

Homosexuality is not just a form of sex; it is a form of love and it deserves our respect.

No. Currently, humanity has a full scientific understanding of the natural disasters around us. God is not needed to explain them. Apply Occam's Razor.

Well, let me start off by saying your post is extremely immodest. How can you, for instance, claim to "know" anything about your creator or his intentions? (I sense a "because the bible tells us so" response coming.) But since we are on the subject and you seem to be very knowledgeable in this arena, would you mind enumerating the reasons why you "think" (or "know") God would postpone enlightening his children about the scientific explanations surrounding natural events and disasters? Why needlessly leave his underlings frightened and ignorant about the natural events surrounding them? Why not intervene to stop the wasteful human/animal sacrifices and other woo?

I would also like to ask the following question (if only to live up to and match the boldness of your post): Why does God seem extremely capricious in his dealings of these disasters? Why save (supposedly "saved") the people of the Russian city Chelyabinsk from a space rock--yet, he seemed rather absent when it came to the 2004 tsunami?

I look forward to your response.