Learn this lesson quickly.
Genuine debate involves providing evidence for one’s assertions. Which, during your tedious excursions into the realm of unwanted sanctimonious panhandling, you have failed dismally to deliver.
Since you also need some other facts dispensing to you, I shall duly deliver, and by doing so, provide an example you would do well to emulate.
Item one: you and your fellow mythology fanboys have had 2,000 years to provide even an atom of genuine evidence for your cartoon magic man, and have FAILED DISMALLY to deliver. As a corollary, ALL your assertions about this entity, can be safely discarded and tossed into the bin, with the same absence of effort you exerted in presenting them.
Item two: your favourite Bronze Age mythology isn’t “evidence” for your cartoon magic man, it’s evidence solely for the propensity of its piss-stained nomad authors to make shit up. Such as that cretinous bilge about genetics being controlled by coloured sticks, an assertion that was utterly destroyed by a 19th century monk, when he launched modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
The assertion I’ve mentioned above isn’t the only example of ridiculous nonsense contained within your goat herder mythology, of course - the whole farcical Kabuki theatre that is Genesis 1 has, of course, been rendered null, void and absurd by scientific discoveries, and if required to do so, I can provide a detailed exposition on that subject with ease. The excremental and diseased farce that is the “global flood” is also known, by those of us who paid attention in class, to be risible garbage.
As a corollary, your assertion that your worthless goat herder mythology constitutes “scientific evidence” for your cartoon magic man, is laughable nonsense to anyone with functioning neurons.
Item three: ex recto apologetic fabrications that an astute child would point and laugh at, aren’t “evidence” for your cartoon magic man, they’re evidence for the desperation and duplicity of the pedlars thereof.
Item four: we and our surroundings aren’t “evidence” for magic poofing by your cartoon magic man, they’re evidence for testable natural processes, as documented in several million peer reviewed scientific papers. Papers that include among their number, documentation of successful experimental test of relevant postulates, which of course is completely absent from your mythology based fantasies.
Indeed, if anyone here is “lost”, it is you, as you manifestly lack knowledge that the rest of us here consider to be elementary, and in some cases acquired during our primary school years. You also manifestly lack any awareness of the proper conduct of discourse, and similarly absent from your woefully inadequate epistemological resumé, is a proper command of logic.
As a direct consequence of these obvious and florid deficiencies on your part, you have already peddled assertions here that are known not merely to be wrong, but to be farcical and absurd, and you have repeatedly committed the fatal error here of mistaking evidence-free proselytising for actual debate. Furthermore, since you need to be told this, blindly parroting unsupported mythological assertions as if they constituted fact, is the very definition of preaching. I suggest you learn this, and remedy your discoursive conduct accordingly.
As for your exhortation above, which when translated into plain English, becomes the nonsensical “talk to my cartoon magic man in the sky, and it will talk back to you”, this farce can be dismissed with the same absence of effort you exerted in presenting it. As can your similarly cretinous assertion that any genuine, substantive knowledge, is purportedly the product of your imaginary horned Kommandant of your similarly imaginary cartoon lava Auschwitz. Likewise, your cant and bluster about “judgement day” is similarly bereft of genuine evidential support, and can safely be tossed into the bin along with the rest of your feculent dreck.
Now, I seem to recall providing you with this schooling during a previous outing of yours, and sure enough, I did indeed school you on relevant issues during said previous outing. To which you responded back then with arrogance, the pretence that you knew me better than I know myself, and more sanctimonious panhandling. Hardly a scintillating track record on your part.
There is a vast canyon of deficit you need to cross, before you are even worthy of a point of view. The only reason I expend time and effort on your drivel, is so that the wider audience knows that said drivel does not pass here unchallenged, so don’t delude yourself that my attention bestows any merit upon your dribblings. Indeed, the precedents that I have set here, are that my attention most usually takes the form of subjecting garbage to the discoursive carpet bombing it deserves. A process I treat as a blood sport.