You are ignoring all responses to your posts, and the several fallacies you have used, maybe address those, once you’ve finished preaching your unevidenced beliefs at us that is.
Oh, in all your excitement you forgot to answer @CyberLN’s question…AGAIN? Plus a whole raft of questions others have asked of course…
You never addressed that?
Can we expect any objective evidence anytime soon?
Care to address that peer reviewed academic paper I provided?
Obviously, you are on a rant and think you are talking to a bunch of third-grade idiots. do you have anything at all worthwhile to talk about? Do you think you have said anything at all that is even remotely rational in all your inane venting? We will be sure to give you a participation trophy at the next monthly meeting. We appreciate the effort. Everyone has to start someplace.
I’ll try one last time before giving up and assuming you aren’t worth talking too: how are you separating correlation and causation?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …
.
So no objective evidence is coming, and he has no intention of even acknowledging Nyarl’s question, I think at this point it is fairly obvious why as well.
His failure even to acknowledge the existence of that peer reviewed academic paper I provided speaks volumes.
Oops it must have slipped out of filecabinets drawer. 
The need to have productive lives full of overcoming challenges is another.
And it’s blind assertions time again.
Did early humans even have a concept of "productive lives? You’ll have your work cut out establishing that.
Plus, you do realise that every organism in the biosphere that has ever existed, had to “overcome challenges” in order to survive and reproduce? Including organisms that lived millions of years before the concept of religion even existed, and which did not possess the cognitive machinery required for abstract thought of any sort, let alone that required to concoct a mythology?
If the vacuity of thought you present here is an example of the effect of believing in a cartoon magic man, then I and others here are truly glad our brains were spared the requisite palsying.
I never got an answer of course, nor did Nyarl get an answer when he asked this in response to your claim:
You ignored his question in your response of course, and so he gave you one more chance:
This was your astonishing and utterly irrelevant reply:
I and others pointed out your dishonesty, and you never revisited the thread.
Correct me if I’m wrong. But doesn’t that come off like you’re close minded to the views of others? I always thought debating with others was a learning experience. If you’re wrong, then you stand corrected. But if your mind is closed to even that, what’s the point of debate?
“Closed-minded?” File Cabinet? You can’t be serious! He has hard facts backing up every assertion he has ever made. … We just wouldn’t be able to understand them.
Well there you go, nothing @Filecabinet posted suggested he was ever here for debate, but that trolling demonstrates it beyond any reasonable doubt. . He wanted to preach, and show how impressive his “reasoning” was. Sadly he has not learned to think critically, only to indulge the same bias theists and religious apologetics does all the time. The irony is of course palpable.
He is as closed minded a poster as I’ve ever met. However the way his strident unevidenced and irrational beliefs were challenged by other atheists here, thoroughly exposes the equally dishonest lies by theists like Sherlock for example, about the atheists here, who almost universally rejected his rhetoric, and for the same reasons they reject theistic apologetics.
I have said this before, but when extremists from both sides of a debate are attacking me, because I am insisting they offer more than their strident irrational rhetoric to support their beliefs, I usually infer I’m showing the right amount of epistemological prudence.
It’s ironic really that Sherlock and FILECABINET seem more angered by those who don’t share either opposing beliefs, than by each other, perhaps because they use the same mendacious rhetoric, they are certainly two of the most relentlessly dishonest posers I can remember. Refusing to answer questions, and making endless assertions they don’t care to defend, only repeat until inevitably they are shown the door.