Basically people who believe in God

If it wasn't clear since you haven't mentioned it. Every single reason that he brought apart from testimony is begging the question.

Begging the question: begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

His interpretation is through the lens he sees the world meaning of course whatever I see confirms what I see because I see it.

His way of using logic just so happens runs in accordance to what he believes so by him saying logic what he means is my way of validating myself is getting me these answers.

What is common sense? Well it is a sense that is common to people as in the people who you are surrounded by agree with what you see. Blatant begging the question because I can see evolution as just the way we became us but someone will see that as proof for a God. If I ask why and the person says commonsense they are essentially begging the question not presenting an argument.  

I could include testimony but I don't want to.

If it wasn't clear whenever eternal is not demonstrating something to be true instead stating something to be commonsense, logical or based on my interpretation understand that this is simply him clearly showing what he thinks not how he got there. It is basically posturing. I hope you agree or eventually get to this conclusion because there is very little to learn from a person who does this and refuses to explain himself instead just spouts words that just so happen to arrive to the conclusion that agrees with him. Another problem with this is that what if you say it is logical that I am where I am? There is no discussion instead we appeal to evidence in the hopes we can bring about a better view of the world. If the person is not willing to give evidence all that he is giving is claims. At the point why bother even entertaining his conversation when you can entertain a crazed homeless man's conversation instead?

If it wasn't clear when someone doesn't demonstrate how they are right instead spout words like logical, commonsense etc they are begging the question as in asserting what they know is true without giving an argument for it. 

I’m letting EtrnlVw lay out all his points before I respond to them

Do you think I am wrong?

What do you think I am missing?

I never stated that you were wrong or missing anything.

Since you are directly countering Etrnl’s points, he would be one to respond to you.

I never stated that you did. I am asking was there something wrong with what I said?

@TheRealNihillist

On a cursory glance, I don’t see anything wrong. With that said, it would be Etrnl’s job to point out errors in your reasoning and make other counters against your argument, since you are directly engaging with him.

@EtrnlVw

Please consider TRN’s counters in post #92

He blatantly has a different opinion than me, he hasn't offered any arguments or rebuttals other than he disagrees with my method. His opinion is that I'm wrong lol, that is just an opinion. You are free to make sense of our posts and who has a legit foundation. It comes down to interpretation, and Theism has the advantage. IMO. 

If I even for one second spot an argument, I'll be all over it. 

All of our thoughts come from our souls, correct?

No sir, the mind is distinct from the actual soul. The mind is more like a tool we use to navigate creation. 

To put it another way, your mind can be thinking something your soul knows is bullshite. 

So the mind is separate from the soul, and the mind and soul are two distinct entities. Correct?

So, the mind is a tool used by the soul, and the soul cannot directly control the body. Right?

Sorry, I edited my post. Is it still correct?

No, as well I deleted it lol

I'll get back on it...

Wrong. 

So the soul can directly control the body? By “directly control”, I mean without the mind.

Yes sir.

How so?

Because the mind exists independent of the conscious soul. You can see all kinds of aberrations of the mind play out in creation....it should be no argument. 

In spirituality you are challenged to rise above the individual mind, when you see the default position it should be obvious. That souls are being controlled by the mind and emotions, not knowing they have complete superiority over that. 

The mind can drag you into all kinds of conclusions, but because it's mechanical it can give you no real experience outside itself, just knowledge you have accumulated. The mind is nothing more than a memory bin or a storage area where you categorize your experiences. The soul is the observer, the one that observes the mind and emotions. 

Do tell them me how he is reasonable when he says this:

Where did I claim the superiority over him? He makes it clear about his superiority. Don't you think that is a bit off? Sorta like he isn't actually open minded instead postures to seem so. I guess his act is up when someone brings up reasonable critiques against his side so he takes the reductionist side to my argument but can't help, as an "open-minded" person, claim that his view is superior to mine. 

In the OP silly, read it again. 

Quote? 

At this point I don't think you even know what evidence is. If you don't know do tell so I can quote on your behalf. I don't know what happened to you in your past but you can always receive help for your weaknesses. 

In this case I have never stated I was superior to yet you went out of your way to say so.

If you didn't feel superior to the folks you quoted in the OP we not hear your complaint. 

So you don't have evidence like how you don't have evidence for your worldview? Oh, gotcha.