Quote from: Tusk on July 10, 2015, 06:11:05 AM

There is no basis to assume a "creator" expresses any emotion towards us or any form of favoritism to any part within the universe. Using emotion to validify or or refute the existence of intelligent design would be false. In the same way mathematics is emotionless, so using concepts of love and hate to argue its validity makes no sense.

Yeah, but most (if not all) religions go one step farther than assert a "creator" god, they have at least one god that wants to be worshiped and (sometimes) loved by the people. Most arguments for a creator are OK, there might be something with a mind of its own that created the universe. But if anyone wants to convince me to join their church or ideology, compelling arguments for a "creator" god are not enough.
I choose not to participate in any religious reunion (church, mosque, etc) because I can get all the benefits of it and do communal good elsewhere, without the need for any prayer.
Now, whether or not god is a logical necessity, or the [insert name here]-tological argument for god is proof of its existence... I'll leave that debate to people who know what they're talking about.
For now, I'm just saying that most religions' claim of their loving (among other things) god starts falling apart the moment I make the observation that their god needs human proxies to make contact, and (apparently) waits for complete belief before presenting himself in some fashion that seems to never be consistent. And comparing their scriptures with what they claim their god to be like gives us more and more inconsistencies that make me believe that most (if not all) religions are a human structure, devoid of an existing deity.