Well, with that being said…

WHERE IN THE HEAVENS ARE WE FROM
———— Are there no facts and proof for the existence of God?
This is how I would frame the discussion… when a tree falls in the forest does it make a noise if nothing is there to hear it? Obviously yes and lame analogy but none the less, with nothing to prove it, one would be left with the powers of deduction alone as their case. In science and philosophy deductive reasoning is taught as a scientific method for validating or invalidating facts. Einstein coined the vary process of elimination and simplification through his “thought experiments,” which led to the Theory of Relativity.
So for the topic of GOD or NO GOD, lets take the same simple process of elimination.
If someone came up to me and said “do you want a billion dollars you idiot,” I really do not believe too many of us would waste a minute on the insults but instead cut straight to the weightier matter – which is how do I get a billion dollars?
OR
If a man came up to me and asked, “what do you want to wear before I kill you?” Again, the question would not be “what should I wear” but would be “why do you want to kill me?” That cuts straight to the heart of the matter and addresses the point that ones life depends on.
Now lets apply these principles to the question of God vs. No God. Hitchens, Dawkins and others alike do a great job at defining many of the variables of such a question –whether God is good, picking apart the flaws of religion and even addressing evolution opposed to the creation account, but have little advice or evidence that would firmly establish there is no God. They do hit attributing factors, but appear to be more caught up in the insults of history and thereby ignore the direct question. One can come to the conclusion that God is not good, but still be left with the question, is there a God?
I really believe the origin of the universe is that billion-dollar question and is the constant we are looking for that would likely wash out many of the variables. If there were another option for origin then there would be no need for God.
So, at the birth of our universe whether you believe in the Big Bang, Evolution, creation or some combination of all three you are still stuck with the question of what started it all.
For the Big Bang, can nothing collide into nothing and explode, creating what we have now? For Evolution, where did the first organism come from that began the evolutionary process? In other words, can something evolve from nothing?” Or if some other life form started ours, what started there’s? Can Evolution, the Big Bang or other intelligent life be responsible for Origin, which by definition precedes their vary existence? With all three hypotheses you are still left with no answer for origin, yet we treat them as if they are.
With the method of deductive reasoning and with the facts at hand and projected to come, one is still left with the answer, no. Evolution and the Big Bang could be the direct outcome of the origin of our universe but they cannot reasonably or factually account for the creation of it.
It is odd to me that in this discussion – the powers of reason only leave us with faith as an option. We have no evidence and no observations that even remotely lead us to discovering an answer for origin so we are left with our imaginations as the answer. So, even in humanity’s finest efforts we are still left with believing in something we cannot see.
I would even be so bold to suggest that Agnosticism and Atheism require even more faith. At least God gives us a reasonable explanation for origin while the others leave us with the option of waiting another 1000 years before hoping to find something.

First off, I’d like to say that my position about God is not that I know he (it) doesn’t exist; instead it’s that I don’t think there are any good reasons to believe God exists. This position, by my lights, is not incompatible with our incomplete understanding of the universe because it merely maintains that given the examination we’ve made so far, so far we haven’t discovered any good reasons for thinking God exists. The burden of proof would seem to be on folks such as yourself, who presumably believe in a deity, to show the evidence for thinking such a being exists.

So then, when you ask “why do we ignore the possibility of God just because we can’t prove it outside of human testimony and experience”, the answer is that we don’t. God may well exist and we just haven’t found him; for my part that doesn’t bother me. Life on other planets might exist too, but until it is found I’m prepared to say I don’t have a good reason to think it exists.

It is the contention of atheists like myself that when we use the best tools we have for finding out what things are true, we just don’t find any good reasons to think God exists.

Also, I think you miss two critical points. First, emoticons are a way of escaping the heightened formalism of the electronic medium, which forces us to express ourselves in a given font with very limited images to use in normal discourse. Second, emoticons overcome the barrier of language differences–and, as such, they are also highly cultural (observe the emoticons from Russia and different parts of Asia).

Interesting thoughts, though. Cheers!