How to discuss religion with believers?

[polymath257]

@Drich
Did you really stop reading after the first line?
Did you seriously not see the avalanche of answers I gave you?
Did you honestly, literally, not see that my post continued and that I actually bothered to address all your points anyways?
Has your faith blinded you to the point you can no longer literally see some type of information? Like real physical blindness that doesn't allow you to see any further and you just see white?

At first I thought I had finally found a decent believer interlocutor that could shed some light on his religion and what were the reasons and logic that brought them to believe in the first place. But now the picture is clearer and all I see is a man blinded by his own faith. Literally blinded. I thought it was strange that you answered to my posts as if you didn't read them. I thought to myself "maybe I didn't explain it well". Then it started getting weirder and weirder that your answers straight out ignored the points I had made. 

My conclusion is that you can't actually see some information, as if you were literally blind to them. It's like your brain was filtering information and showing you white. I really cannot fathom it otherwise.

I can't really get angry at you because I realize you are just victim of your circumstances. You found in "god" a way to cope and it worked, so really, who am I to take that away from you? As they say, "whatever floats your boat, man".

I don't think there is any point in continuing this. A conversation stops being a conversation when all you can hear is your echo.

If you'll ever bother to actually read my post, then you'll find all the answers and may understand. I'll also add that you might be interested to read these pages, even though they may actually do more harm than anything. What I wonder is: do you really wish to understand further? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I seriously read everything you had to say. and you have been closedmindedly repeating yourself for like the last 4 posts. 

Again I completely understand your theortical approach and understand why you have stuck to your guns. But in doing so you have made no effort outside of labling what I have said as being wrong on the simple fact that what I said differs from your take.

What I then moved to do it point out that unknowingly one of your peers polymath who has indeed corrected you on occasion on his own saw I was speaking on an atomic level then took it upon himself to reword everything he had to say converting from mols to atoms and explaining his new conclusion.. but low and behold his new arguement his new numbers and his new conclusion.. were my numbers were my thoughts and my conclusion from the beginning... Then because he had only 1/2 of what I said I walked him through the rest of why I'm saying there is no 1:1 conversion

Then I asked you to not address me and my work but to address his and explain to me how he is wrong.

Please don't claim I said something I never said. Scientia is correct here. You aren't. The masses are in 1:1 ratio before and after any reaction.