Yes I pick on all religions.

[Brian37]

UGGGGGGGG! This has to be the most abused grade school logic I see constantly. No one has the guts to admit where this is coming from.

This attitude is coming from your evolutionary sense of empathy and fair play. No one is talking about human rights. This is about claims and how good logic works.

There is not one ethical scientist I can think of that will ever claim to know everything, but that has NOTHING to do with past and current claims.

Not knowing what the future might bring as far as evidence is not a licence to dwell in the past and cling go claims of invisible super hero claims. Not all claims are equal nor by proxy of utterance does that make a claim true.

Here is what you are doing by your good intent of fair play, which is still flawed logic.

"We dont know for sure so invisible pink unicorns exist until we prove they do not exist".

There are an infinite number of bullshit claims one could fill in the gaps because the future is not here yet. But it is still gap filling.

STEPHEN HAWKINS, "A god is NOT required"

Not only is a god not required we know that humans are notorious for making up all sorts of gods and falsely believing them to be true.

Now in scientific reality we know the only place we find cognition is in EVOLUTION. Postulating a fictional super hero with no brain and no body is like pretending you have an invisible car with no car or even an engine that runs on pixy dust.

It boils down to "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party".

Since we do not know the future that means Angelina Jolie will someday give me a blowjob. Now how much time do you waste considering that "posibility"? YOU don't.

Which makes more sense to you? A magical sky hero exists? Or humans make them up and falsely believe in them? How much time do you dwell on Thor existing because you have not lived the future yet?

You have just made a big song and dance out of nothing, as I said you cannot prove there is no god, its that simple, just have the guts to admit that and leave it at that, and also that goes for the one who believes there is a god.

You cant disprove the existence of invisible pink unicorns either. That does not mean by proxy of utterance that the claim is worth considering. Otherwise if everything is true until disproved then there are an infinite number of bullshit claims humans can make up.

Not all claims are equal by default. Not all claims are true merely because someone utters them.

Science is running away from the concept of a non material god as a gap answer, it is not pointing to one even being a requirement.

You are enabling their bad use of logic employing your sense of fair play.

"God/god/deity or supernatural ARE NOT claims worth considering".

Especially now that evolutionary biology and neurology and psychology already explain how flawed perceptions evolved with our species.