You miss understand theist then... we say you cannot describe/understand God completely or even mostly but that is all. We can only get a small glimpse of God and the stuff we know we know only because he has told us in one way or another (example. through creation, through the prophets, through Christ). 

you assume because God is infinite you cannot understand him at all and that he does not have emotions

Incorrect. You are projecting your wrongess onto me. I am stating that to project emotion onto God, thus it has no merit, so there is no need to take it seriously as a proposition.

 I however am not making that assumption at all

You make the opposite assumption, that God is anthropomorphic

 Tell me, where is the proof that God implies no emotions or not understandable at all?

It is merely a definition. The philosophers pointed out that religion is worthless because it fails to make God understandable. The whole point of the thesis was the religion says nothing about God, rather the underlying projection of man, hence the diffusion of different faith across the globe. The evidence that God is not understandable is quite simply that it cannot be verified to exist.

 Since I start with the Bible I know that man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) (thus he has some common ground with God no matter how small) and that God has revealed himself through the Bible (that is why it is called God's word).

Please. The Bible is worthless drivel. The Quran is also called Gods word. So are the Vedic texts and the Talmud, even the Greek mythology was considered God's word at one point. Please provide any evidence that the Bible is any more valid than any other holy book. And don't start rambling on about some ancient prophecy because that is common to virtually all religions. 

Must I really point out that science by definition is testable and provable? Are you brainless enough to suggest that science is brainwashing when science can be and is proven?

It won't happen. God is impossible. Laws of physics prove it. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

You will deny it but you are just as brain washed. You feel you are on the winning side just because you have "science" but majority never can be equated to right

I want everyone to observe this: The theist cannot argue thus he projects his flaws onto you.

Science is not a popularity contest. It is the opposite. Science is about having evidence and experimental data. Verification and induction to make proof. Religion

a) Does not have this

b) Is the opposite: religion is a popularity contest. This is why Islam and Christianity are respected and Mormonism and scientology are not. They attempt to continue the popularity contest by vying for converts and evangelizing.

Also, please explain how requiring evidence, logic, reason and science to believe something is "brainwashing"

 Well now you know what I think of atheist too... just silly. But not a laughing matter...

The theist fails to counter Iruka's point regarding different religions so he just replaces a word in the sentence and posts it.

 It won't happen. God is impossible. Laws of physics prove it. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Indeed. First law of thermodynamics. There is only one person in this discussion who has no understanding of molecular kinetics. 

deludedgod... do mamals and reptiles share retroviruses in their DNA? Do mamals share retroviruses with any other animals?

Yes, I knew you felt the same way about atheists. That's why you are here. We are trying to convince one another.

Let me reiterate two points that have already been covered admirably by others:

• Science is not on the same footing as religion. Science is testable: provable and falsifiable. Religion is not. And all religions that rely on faith, from Pastafarianism to Scientology to Christianity are equally unprovable.
• It is true that it is impossible to either prove or disprove god's existence (at this point); however, belief and disbelief are not on equal footing. The default position for any outrageous claim is always unbelief. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim, in this case: "God exists." Otherwise we'd spend every waking moment trying to disprove the non-existence of all kinds of things. Here's an example: Prove Santa doesn't exist. Once you give me some arguments, I'll tell you that Santa actually has an underground fortress at the North Pole that is undetectable by all current technology. If you argue further, I'll come up with another way to define Santa into existence. This is what apologetics does for religion...and it makes the rational want to bang their heads against the wall.
  

I've read quite a few of your posts, James, and one of the assertions you've made is that atheists cannot understand the theistic position. This is completely unfounded. I understand better than most. I grew up in a Christian home and attended a Christian school from grades 2 through college. I honestly believed in Jesus Christ and had devoted my life to his glory.

Then a funny thing happened. Through a series of events, I finally learned I had been duped. So, when I say I feel embarrassed for you, it's not just a figure of speech. I really do feel embarrassed for you. It's a little knot that enters my gut and makes me feel very uncomfortable, both for you and for the me of 20 years ago who would be saying the same things you're saying now.

Instead of getting angry--it's hard not to when you wasted a large portion of your life on a dangerous lie--I am trying to view religion in the same way Richard Dawkins does. It's a virus of the mind and it is virulent and highly infectious. The person who has the virus will deny its very nature. I denied it and denied it and denied it, but in the end I finally beat it. It was a painful process. The more people who go through the process, the less painful it should be. I had to do it mostly alone, but now there are places like this site. If you do manage to extricate yourself from religion, there will at least be people online you can talk to about your experiences.

Nah. God could have just fixed what was broken. He didn't have to go on a murderous spree.

However, God is the same today, yesterday, and forever. AMIRITE? 

This is a lie, we live in a world devoid of your morality, thank goodness, but I live in a world of morality without God, which doesn't lead me to kill people or do anything I want to do. I still must respect the morality of not harming my fellow humans unneccessarily, and if we were to uphold respecting each other instead of disrespecting each other (as religions do in abundance) the world would not be the shithole religion has made it. So, stop trying to say those of us who refuse to kill people because they are gay or having sex outside of marriage, are immoral, because it seems the height of immorality is killing people for stupid reasons handed down from an invisible fairy.

Actually, we do have evidence from the Egyptian side that they were slaves in Egypt....not that this had anything to do with this thread.

(this quoting system mystifies me)

There is no evidence of the Exodus is what i meant. and this shows that the word is not infallible and is open to being treated as a book of lies and not the word of any god of any importance. I only used this particular example as a tie-in to what JamesAChristian said (I didn't realize I had to explicitly quote him, I thought it would be attached to the message) so, here is what I was answering to

JamesAChristian said:

You make an interesting point that Moses killed but what does that proove? Are you implying that people cannot change? That the Moses who lead the Israelites out of Egypt was the same one who killed the Egyptian even though he had probably around 50 years to think about what he had done. You make an awfull lot of assumptions...

Assumptions indeed......

Assuming will only leave you looking dumb. There were Jews in Egypt, of their own free will for the most part, and the ones (about 120,000) who were "slaves", taken by Ptolemy, were voluntarily released by Philadlephus soon after arriving somewhere between 400 BC and 641 AD. But, this comes from Josephus, and may well be completely false (remember some of his works concerning Jesus have been disputed as forgeries for hundreds of years)

read up on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Egypt 

Was that on the Simpsons where they said "yeah, but that's Wikipedia. A 13 year old could've written that 5 minutes ago."

If for only this alone I think the bible cannot be the word of a God lol.