Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Hence, the limits of sensory perception/the limits of scientific inquiry are the limits of reality/human cognition? Not with absolute certainty, no. However, in the interest of intellectual honesty, it is incumbent upon the analyst to speak with a sense of certainty only on those items that can identified, measured, and isolated. These are the things we can test, make predictions about, and directly identify any affects they may have on us and the surrounding environment. These are based around observed and (usually) understood laws of nature. If something fails to meet this criteria, that something's properties cannot be specified, and its very existence can only be confirmed in cases of necessity. Which brings us to our next point:You continue: “. . . unnecessary in multiple recorded instances?”I have no idea what you’re talking about here.It is possible to infer the existence of something in cases where a currently unidentified acting agent is required in order to have an observed affect. I imagine you'll fully agree that the universe operates as an intricate web of cause-and effect. Therefore, if a cause is not imminently observable, minimal defining characteristics can be inferred by ruling out all possible known agents and assigning the remaining acting properties to whatever it is that we are looking for. This is why physicists have posited dark matter, the higgs-boson, and nearly all known particles and forces prior to isolation. But we have to be very careful about only inferring the absolute minimal requisite properties prior to isolation and direct observation of the item/phenomenon/etc. This does not mean that that is all there is on the topic, it just identifies what we really know about it any given time.The "multiple recorded instances" is really just shorthand for the entire history of correct application of the scientific method. No matter how many biological, geological, astrological (etc.) processes we've identified and figured out, we have never seen irrefutable evidence of an active consciousness behind them. Everything we've seen is the result of c-and-e interactions dictated and manipulated by the laws of physics, and will continue on predictably in certain environments whether in a lab or nature.Often, people will note the complexity, the balls-out awesomeness of nature, and say that it gives the appearance of design. But this appearance is at best an evident trait rather than an imminent trait. In other words, it is possible there is a consciousness guiding the universe, but there is no proof that such a thing is necessary, and without that requisite necessity, things like God, the soul, afterlife realms and what-have-you is all unfounded speculation.And of course you are going to hide behind infinite regression, which seems to be the only leg you are even attempting to stand on. You are taking the concept of "the absolute beginning" and hedging all of your bets on that, which probably feels safe to you because it is one area science is still not certain on, the biggest and oldest mystery we have. Infinite regression is an almost foolproof tactic for establishing that there was some kind of beginning to this all.(I say "almost" foolproof because it is reliant on time being completely linear and finite. The linearity seems obvious since it is virtually immutable within the confines of the human experience, and temporal finitude is pretty much a certainty at this point. However, time isn't even a factor when you talk about the singularity, so typical rules of cause and effect go out the window. Time's finite nature excludes it, as far as we can tell, from being a factor prior to the big bang event. Linearity, chronological order, is an emergent property of time and so is not useful in deducing what happened "before" time. Even then, time's linearity within the universe itself is not 100% established, as it may well be cyclical which also defies our normal understanding of time. All of this is an aside, though, and generates more speculation than solid answers. So for now I will operate as if linearity is proof of some variety of beginning.)This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent. I’m not saying that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. I’m simply saying, for the sake of argument, that neither of these potentialities can be rationally denied. Period.Nor can either be absolutely affirmed at this point. However, between Occam's Razor and the responsibility to only affirm what is necessarily true, I am inclined to take option (1) at this time. The best we can say is that some sort of foundation was there. The specifics of this foundation are still unknown. Adding characteristics such as intelligence and persona is stepping well beyond the realms of necessity unless you care to establish otherwise. Therefore the Rational approach is to not accept these characteristics as indisputable truth. Treat it as a possibility if you wish. I do. But a possibility is not an undeniable truth, and to accept it as such requires faith. Period.One last comment before I move on to the next installment:I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility..To clarify, I am an agnostic atheist, not gnostic. I do not flatly deny that it is possible that God exists. I simply analyze the lines of evidence attempting to support this claim and have found them wanting.