My arguments are based on evidence and logic
Braveheart is based on a true story, but it doesn't use the true story very much. Similarly, your arguments might be based on evidence and logic....
You start with the premise that there is no God, then you use this premise to try to dismiss any evidence or God.
No. You don't start with a premise at all. You start with the evidence, and you proceed to a conclusion from that. Not assuming god is not 'the premise that there is no god' any more than it's the premise there aren't witches, unicorns or pan-dimensional cheese thieves.
Fine tuning cannot happen because there is no God to do it.
No, fine tuning might be happening, but the evidence available doesn't support that conclusion. In order to demonstrate fine tuning you'd have to establish a basis for presuming that this particulary format for reality was in some way pre-ordained or intended. You - and others - have failed to establish the evidence for that, and so it remains at best a conjecture.
The specific sequence of events needed to bring life into existence were unintended consequences which just happened because there is no God.
No. The specific sequence of events for which we have evidence can be the result of unguided physical forces. There is no evidence of an intention, and therefore, purely from Occam's Razor, to introduce a sentient guide to the process is unnecessary. It's not been disproven, but it's not necessary to explain the evidence, either.
Any evidence for miracles can be dismissed because there is no God.
If you have evidence it's not a 'miracle', that's the whole point of miracles, they are claims without an explanation. In the absence of an explanation you assert 'God'. Every single 'miracle' is equally as applicable as evidence for The Beyonder, or Desartes' Demon as it is for a god, let alone your God.
The universe must have brought itself into existence because there is no God.
We have evidence for the universe. We have explanations for how a significant portion of the elements of the universe have come to be without recourse to the non-explanation of 'God'. We have no evidence for God. I don't know that anyone is suggesting that the universe brought itself into existence, I do know of people that operate on the assumption it's some sort of spontaneous physical event.
Our freedom to control our own thoughts cannot be true because we have no soul.
The notion of free will makes no sense in and of itself. It's self-contradictory by definition, even before we get to the physical evidence that shows us that's not how our brains work. Adding a 'soul' into the argument doesn't resolve in the inherently flawed nature of the concept, it just moves where you think that paradox is happening from the brain, which we can show is there, to a soul which we can't.
Any historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus can be dismissed because there is no God.
No. The historical evidence for the life and death of Jesus is, broadly, accepted as evidence of someone probably existing. The tales of magic and resurrection of Jesus are put in the same bracket as the stories of the magic and resurrection of Gandalf (but turned into much worse films) - they are not sufficient evidence to support the spectacular claims. Old preacher lived and was executed by the Romans is a tale that doesn't need a huge amount of justification; magic is real needs something more than a second-rate fantasy story to justifiy its acceptance.
Sassy's opening post on this tread is so true, because instead of searching for God with an open mind, you are seeking reasons to dismiss any evidence on the premise that God cannot exist.
I'm not obliged to search for God at all. I'm not here because I'm curious about the possibility, I left that behind long, long ago. I'm here because religion is dangerous, because accepting certain claims as true without, or even despite, evidence undermines the progress humanity has been making, and because the notion of 'sacred' needs to be challenged whenever it's raised.
Open your eyes - the truth is there to be seen, and it really will set you free!
I'm minded of the phrase 'when you're looking at the world through rose tinted glasses, the red flags just look like flags'. That's your 'evidence'.
Trying to compare the events which brought you into existence with a lottery win really is clutching at straws.
Whereas pushing second-rate Merlin and his Authoritarian Sky-Fairy's 'Slavery's fine, nothing to say about rape, but lay off the shellfish and haircuts' Big Boy's Book of Bedtime Stories is just fucking peachy, apparently.
O.
[/quote]
