So prove to me the Almighty Yeti doesn't exist.

actualy, were you to say this, i would say that it appered as though we were talking about the same being, just using different names. we might, however, disagree on what he wants us to do, but you dont belive in God or "the almighty yeti". so there isnt much use in us having that discusion, now is there?

Faith doesnt predict tomorows weather or build a better airbag.

please show me where i said it did

How many important scienctific theories have been tested, proved and adopted from a religious facility?

need i remind you that up untill the early 20th century almost all colleges (where the majority of research took place at the time) were religious facilities? The church was the main push behind most scientific research and discoveries from the end of the middle ages onward. you seem to have the idea that religion excludes science. well, it doesnt, rather it offers answers to the questions which science can"t answer.

I'm not going to jump to an illogical conclusion there is a god.

by illogical, to do mean "not suficent evidance to come to a logical conclusion" or "this can be disproved by logic" if you can disprove it, show us, if there isnt suficent evidance then i belive i did say that God has left just enough gap to require faith to belive in Him.

This is stricly an opionion and contains no facts.

a philisophical argument is nither an opionion or a fact, it is an argument, you can either agree with it, or refute it, you have done nither.

Just becuase we dont know the exact circumstances something (say how we could evolve and you end up typing a thought) does not mean thats not the way it happens

but it does mean that you do not have enough evidence to prove it, it remains a theory.

So my choices here are an invisble thing that is "me" that no one can prove exists, or that my brain is a complex system of chemical reactions.
These reactions i manipulate on a daily basis by ingesting drugs, which then effect my mental/physical state.

It seems to me that you and Peter disagree on this. he seems to say that he has a more direct control over his thoughts and therefor can trust them to make judgments about things, you seem to think your enviroment can change your "mental/physical state". how about the two of you hash that out and get back to us on it.

Down these lines, does the soul store information? we've proved if you remove pysical parts of the brain the person loses mental abilities, at what point does the soul "take over" information control? how would you prove this?

i honestly dont know the answer to this question, i imagin however, that strict information retention is not quite so important in heaven (i asume that is where you are going with this) furthermore, when you reduce the mental abilities of a person in such a fashion, at what point would the human element with in them be considered "dead" (perhaps the heart still beats, the lungs still breath, everything still works, there is just "nobody upstairs") at this point i would say the soul has left the body.

The whole idea for a soul seems designed to control other human beings afraid of their own mortality.

actualy the existance of a soul seems to make people fear their mortality less. i am not afraid to die because i belive death to be mearly the begining of my existance. as far as "control" goes, you must mean holding people acountable for there actions and seem to regard that as a bad thing. on the other hand, if there is no soul then we sould fear death greatly (it being the irreversable end of our existance) and furthermore, feel free to do most anything we want because there will be no lasting concquences for it.

I would write more, i am aware there is still much to reply to, however "life" calls. Next chance i get i will be writing out replies to the rest of this however.