First, let me acknowledge that I'm a narcissist.  But, hey, at least I acknowledge it.  

Second, that being said, what does your "intellectual acuity" suggest to you when you -- intentionally or unintentionally, I do not know -- fail to respond to the instances in which your core arguments against Intelligent Design have been proven totally false beyond all possible doubt?

Examples:

1)  You close your case (i.e. "case closed") against a belief in God based upon the premise of a total a lack of empirical evidence, though it has been both proven and referenced to you that this is a completely invalid and irrelevant argument.  We can toss that argument of yours in the trash.

2)  There is no #2.  Number 1 is all you've proposed, and it's false.  You've demonstrated no other argument.

Here is your debating style in a nutshell:

You:  There is no evidence for God or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters.

Correct person:  False analogy, and it's also irrelevant in that, axiomatically, physical evidence can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something with a non-physical component(s).

You:  Blah blah blah, superstition.

Correct person:  But, you didn't even rebut the point.  You just kept going.

You:  I am so smart.

Correct Person:  

...And repeat.  Sound about right?

Wow.  Some acuity.  You're essentially a character foil to BADecker.  It seems no amount of sound reason will convince either of you to admit you're wrong.  I readily await the ad hominems to follow --  unless, you know, you actually want to discuss ideas.