Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[GUBU]

---

That's not true I think. Believing in God comes naturally to many people, and it doesn't have anything to do with their parents' beliefs.

As ever, the thing you think stands in contradiction to fact.  For better or for worse....and regardless of whether there is a god, and regardless of whether or  not you believe that god belief is natural...whatever that means... it will remain a fact that the strongest predictor of religiousity and even specific beliefs..is whether or not they were held by your parents.  

Why? Why should I point out precisely where or how God intervened? You surely would agree that a deity can create a self sufficient world where genetics take care of things...

Why would I agree to that?  As far as I can tell, gods aren't capable of doing anything - but, again, if you'd like to point out where god touches the genetics, you're free to do so...and if you would prefer to assert that genetics "takes care of things", instead, then you can no longer point to any need for god in genetics or fish.   As for you, why should you point it out?  Because you're the one who asserted as much, numbskull.

---

Now you're absolutely mistaken about this one. God (as in traditional belief systems) has purportedly rare direct manifestations in the material world, and may do so exclusively through miracles. Miracles are rarely occuring events by definition. An empirically testable claim has to be about repeatable, even reproducible phenomena. A divine miracle is not repeatable nor reproducible.

And because of that, the god hypothesis cannot be an empirically testable claim. This is a textbook category mistake. Ah.. and a nice attempt to strawman, also.

If you say that the god hypothesis is not empirically testable, then it isn't testable by the way things appear.  Your fish argument fails, according to you.

I'm getting images of a child specialist interviewer gently asking a DNA strand to point out on a doll where the god touched it.