Firstly, you should make at least a passing effort towards lucid expression. Even on an internet forum, you should do your interlocutors the decency of writing coherent sentences with proper spelling and grammar. You will note that I take the time to do just that, with no exception.

Well, here you are actually making a Strawman argument which demonstrates an inability to distinguish between two classifications of "atheist" normally employed. For one, you are commiting an ad ignorantium fallacy by suggesting something being proclaimed by those who you are arguing against that is not actually bing proclaimed. A strong atheist does not accept your epistemological assertion. The word "agnostic" is etymologically derived (as it was coined by TH Huxley) from gnosis. The agnostic hence believes that no knowledge is possible that would alter any open possibility of stance towards the proposition God Exists. Yet this doctrine is remarkably odd. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest it is borderline absurd. Nonetheless, the strong atheist would hold deductive arguments against such a proposition are indeed possible.

On the other hand the weak atheist simply acknowledges tha, being no such thing as a burden of disproof, no positive affirmation of any proposition can be accepted without sufficient reason, and so no positive affirmation is given. The weak atheist does not give a direct negative affirmation as that would be an ad ignorantium fallacy, which is double-edged:

X is true because X has not been proven false 

or, the latter being under discussion:

X is false because it hasn't been proven true.

This distinction being kept in mind, the latter stance holds for the bulk of people on this board, and so you are simply attacking a strawman that you invented.

Obviously a reductio ad absurdum can be derived quite swiftly from pure agnosticism unless one was willing to admit that one could hold pure agnosticism on all possible propositions for which there was no evidence yet simultaneously none to the contrary, which includes every proposition from Russell's Teapot ad infinitum. Unless you bite this bullet, you must admit that your stance is reduced to the absurd quite quickly.

This epistemological assertion is vapid. Science has established itself methodologically. Any epistemological assertion pertaining to any "why" claims must also have an epistemic backing. We cannot simply have a field dedicated to "why" questions solely on virtue of the idea that we think we need one, without proper epistemic justification, there is no reason whatsoever to accept your proposition. Science is methodologically well established and useful. It has a method. Epistemological claims about "why", better known as teleology, do not. And so, this assertion of yours is simply nonsense. There is no reason to hold it. There is no reason to hold that any epistemological method has ever established any way to glean possible truths about teleology, or "why". So, your claim, analogous to NOMA, is not valid. We cannot have a field of discourse purported to gleaning teleological truths solely because we think we need one. 

This virulence in your tone shows you probably lack the intelligence to have proper discussion on this matter anyway.

When you respond, or rather, if you respond, please write in English.

lol, your my hero DG. How do you keep going? I get so frustrated with these people and I haven't even been posting for long. I do appreciate your posts and have learned a tremendous amount from you. Sorry for the spam.

There are times when I ask myself the same question. It's not so much the refutation part that is difficult to produce. That part comes without effort. It is simply comprehending the scale of ridiculous irrationality that has the occasional tendancy to fill me with despair. It is...frustrating, and here I simply chose the most neutral word to express my feelings I could find.

what you wrote: 

what i read: 

blah blah blah blah blah...FISH 

I care for and respect the oldest and most important parts of human culture and our unquestionable heritage:

WAR

VIOLENCE 

RAPE

GENOCIDE

SLAVERY

and DEATH 

Since when does being incoherent add to an idea. Oh, wait, only when the idea is incoherent. The only time being incoherent will help you is when your idea is even less coherent and needs to be masked by confusion. Otherwise known to people like you as "mystery" wooooooooo 

It is odd because in Philosophy, there is discourse on matters all the time that cannot be touched by scientific empericism because they do not have the methods to do so. You seem to to be making a fallacy of bifurcation. You are suggesting that if a scientific empericism cannot gain knowledge of it, so such knowledge cannot be gained by any method. Ironically, these are the same people that accuse us of scientism! Using an analytical philosophical method, it is perfectly possible and acceptable to critique the concept of the Existence of God. The idea that this concept is forever shut from reasoned discourse is surely one which was made up by those who realized it was nonsense but wished to keep it in place.

There is no reason that religious metaphysical claims cannot be investigated by philosophical argument, suggesting otherwise would indicate you are trying to defend rather idiotic propositions.

I am unsure (a) what this even means and how (b) that a concept provides reason for our existence should have any impact on its truth value. This is an argument from the consequences, and does not have any reflection on its merit.

Firstly, the concept of a "soul" is ontologically meaningless so I won't even bother to discuss that unless you wish to give it clarification. At present you seem to be thriving on meaningless or vague terms such as "higher power" and this is unacceptable in philosophical discourse. Second, scientific empericism does have claims in this regard, since the claims you reference, such as those of the soul, make comments about the nature of the mind, which is indeed possible to be investigated using the scientific method, although again philosophy also holds a strong arm in areas that science finds difficult because of method. Neuroscience is a very successful field with a great deal of explanatory power. I do sometimes regret that I did not enter the field, although I theoretically could have if I wished.

Yes you are. You are attacking propositions that people do not hold. 

You obviously do not know what "strawman" means.

Why? Religion makes strong metaphysical truth claims. But it has no method nor propositions for how to glean truth values for these assertions. How can one then respect it? I couldn't care less if it is part of our "heritage". All I care about is how its knowledge claims can be evaluated.

Firstly, the concept of "science replacing religion" is simply incoherent. Science is a method, a strong arm for investigating the emprical world. Religions can make specific empirical claims which usually later get refuted by this method. Even if they didn't, you are committing a category error by making the implicit assumption that people suggest this. It would be rather like saying "Razor blades should not be replaced with apples". It is a meaningless sentence. Replace implies "take over a prior function". Religion never had any function. Ever. This is simply because a proper philosophical method will show the bulk of its knowledge claims are vapid, and a great deal more still can be outright refuted since they are empirical claims and therefore can be investigated by science, ie an empirical method. You might as well just admit that you are arguing, and losing, in trying to show that religious propositions should be shielded from reasoned discourse because they make people feel good, and simultaneously arguing that no knowledge can ever be gained which would change the truth values we can assign to their claims. The latter is simply nonsense of the highest order.

Of course not. I am a physicalist. I hold ultimately there is only one ontological category and everything else from whence derives. Second, the word "spiritual" is confusing, meaningless, and vague. It has no ontological category, it does not describe entities or a bundle of properties. People who claim to believe in something spiritual simply believe in a word, a name, with its rather odious connotations of somehow having intrinstic superiority attached to it as if "not believing in anything spiritual" was somehow an insult. I tend to view such statements the same way I would view the statement "he doesn't believe in the realm of the snork".

Then why should I read and respond?

Here you are simply perpetuating the odious stereotype that urban dwellers are more intelligent than their counterparts in non-urban areas.

You forget the fact that there would be no athiests without theists. One does not have to take the middle ground just because someone else makes a claim. Is it possible that my gf is cheating on me?? Yes it is possible. However, I have not seen any evidence to suggest so, therefore there is no good reason to waste my time in believing so.

Gollum?  Is that you?

blah blah blah bah blah