presumably if you believe in the big bang then you don't believe in the god of Abraham from the old testament who created an earth with water and grass and trees and night and day - before there was a sun or moon. Gen 1:1-16

also, the balance of nature is exactly how evolution works - not a benevolent god. how would the extinction of most species that have ever existed including humanoid species like Neanderthal be considered benevolent? what was their purpose - if they had none, isn't it then possible that we would have none?

ludacris ad hominem assertion by someone who, of course, presents no evidence for his argument

an example of the fear employed to get people such as yourself to believe i suspect

what makes me feel more and more correct that there is no god is that the explanations just boil down to "of course he [exists]"

although your solution is a god with infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite presence, infinite morality, and has existed infinitly. if 2 infinitly existing planes of energy collided and caused the big bang - that would require infinite time, but no morality or involvement/presensce in our current universe. there are many explainations that do not require a god to create our universe - the fact that we haven't narrowed it to one for you does not mean the demonstrably flawed bible is correct

"as a Catholic, I DO believe in God"

nice tautology but that's not really a reason for believing is it? If your kid asked you why you belive and didn't just accept because your Catholic, how would you explain it to them

I agree mostly with your reasoning on why religion attacks science, but i don't think most people realize that this argument is showing up as supporting belief in god. Since it wasn't tagged, I think it is getting a lot of 'i wish we could all get along' points but giving them to the supporting position.

This may be a problem with the site counting points for non-tagged arguments for one-side or the other.

see Miller Urey and the many other experiments that deal with origins of life from inorganic material to organic material (amino acids, etc)

god created animals then man and woman in Gen 1:24-27

but he created man first, then animals, then woman in Gen 2:18-22

God told Noah to take a male and female of every animal Gen 6:19-20 and four verses later says to bring 7 pairs of every clean animal and 2 of animals that are not clean Gen 7:2

Even the lineage of Jesus doesn't get further than Joseph and Mary without contradicting itself

so if i was french irish does that mean i would have to half-believe in god, or believe in a different god? If you feel compelled to believe your parents that doesn't mean they are right.

hmmm - what argument would you use to prove them wrong exactly? since that is what we are interested in here...

you can debate faith in some regards - if someone believes god makes lightning and uses it to smite people, then we show how lightning actually works - then the person of faith can either believe their god does not exist, or is less powerful in that it no longer is responsible for lightning, or made it possible for you to discover how lightning works but also still controls it, etc.

when given enough fallacies - 6000 year old earth etc a person is either left with a much weaker god that only does whatever you can't prove it didn't do (and many claims of things that it did which you can prove unlikely), or no god at all.