If unicorns exist, then neither are they. If genies exist then neither are they. The only thing separating god and various folk myths, is that god is more subscribed to. Which in terms of veracity, is meaningless. Unless you are happy to accept than in India, god exists less because fewer people there believe in him. Or, if appeal to masses is your route, you have to accept that if subscription to the belief and subsequent allowing for the scripture to be right by default is the metric, then all religions are equally valid, no matter how mutually exclusive they may be. It is an intellectually weightless argument.



So the reason we're to consider god is that we can just make up loopholes by thinking about them? Again, an empty bit of logic. Anyway, science does not say this.. Science just describes what can be falsified. The idea of an invisible intangible deity, is non-falsifiable. Therefore, science just ignores the question. Is there a god? Who cares - the question is meaningless. Why even raise the question? Why even introduce the concept of god, when nothing warrants it?



No one is immune per se, but people who value their faith are going to have a negative emotional response to allowing for there to be no god. Thus this standpoint doesn't get equal ground in their reasoning. I don't know a single atheist who is emotionally attached to atheism, just those who may emotionally reject religion which has harmed them for example.



And the scenario of all religion, including sun worship, satanism, paganism - the list goes on. A part of the human psyche is disposed to creating a superior existential hierarchy. Christianity is not special, it's just the most popular one in English speaking countries. This is an english speaking forum, so it's Christianity which is the focus. This same conversation happens all over the internet with the other religions too.

-


Again, you start with the assumption that god exists and created everything, and thus everything mechanistic we discover is his way of making it all work - you twist the information to fit your starting conclusion, you don't gather the information first, then try to rule out your biases and then see what the information tells you. THIS is why science progresses and gives such results and religion merely shrinks into the gaps and delivers little of tangible value to the world, other than emotional feedback which occurs within the minds of its followers. I'm already anticipating the fact that this is very valuable to followers, but the fact remains that if you deleted Christian scripture from the earth and wiped everyone's memories, people would just come up with a new religion based on the culture of the time.

The only reason we think Scientology is bunkum and Christianity is "a valid alternative to rationalism" is that we know who wrote the Scientology book and we know its tropes. Christianity has the benefit of having been largely written during the bronze age onwards and its traditions all fermented before an age of comprehensive records, thus its origins are shrouded in mystery, which is key to giving it credibility. However, to the non-predisposed observer, it does very much appear to be a movement based on books of dubious origin, which has gathered much of its momentum in the pre-scientific age and now has a gravity all of its own.

I still find the "is there a god?" question only of importance to people who want there to be one. Personally, I don't need one. What I know of what we have discovered thus far is more than enough to satisfy my questions and those which can not be answered are not satisfactorily done so by the addition of any culture's deities. Be it your god, or one of the various others on offer.

(DDL was more succinct I feel)