Not to help people rub bullshit even deeper into society, but I have always found it odd that people try to argue from a creation standpoint. Jumping right to the existence of a God. Seems to me like it would be better to argue for a soul, then for an intergalactic soul federation, and then a God that is president/dictator. The basis for arguing for religion is making a hypothesis that can’t be tested yet, calling it a theory, and then debating its credibility based on the fact that it cannot be disproven. So why not argue from a neurological stance? I could hypothesize that it is our soul that transforms electrical signal turns into experience, then say that nothing has been observed to say otherwise, and then write a book, start a website, and make a bunch of money. But I guess if everyone was logical this website wouldn’t exist and neither would religion, so there would be no need to point out better ways to argue religion. Paradoxical thinking.
