Naturally, the process took billions of years. I hardly see why the constraints of our limited lifespan affect the reality that intelligence is an evolved characteristic.

And what is your point? You have already agreed with me that the building blocks of everything was introduced from the beginning.

You missed my point. I agree, we are the effect of prior cause. That the "building blocks" existed, that there was cause that led to the present effect, does not require a conscious conception of the effect when the cause occurred. Intelligence being a developed attribute is not proof of "God".

You can drop that "proof of God" shit, because in no way am I trying to prove God. I am just suggesting an idea, one you can choose not to contemplate if you wish.

If you trace back the origins of "God" to any religion it is fairly apparent that "God" was introduced as a mechanism of moral codification, social control, and personal coping.

As far as religions go? Maybe. But there are non-religious theists and the entire notion of "God" wasn't necessarily introduced for any other reason except that it seemed logical. It of course, does not seem logical to you because you seem to think that there is evidence pointing toward an unintelligent creative force that brought all of this into existence, and that is fine, but I disagree.

Going back to the apple tree analogy, someone can take the seeds from an apple and plant them, and they will grow into apple trees. The entire tree was implied in the seeds of the fruit that grew from the tree. Could it possibly be that something intelligent planted the seed of everything, with full knowledge that it would grow to include intelligence?

That a myth is taught as fact, that a myth is not categorized as fiction, does not make the myth more valid than those more commonly conceived of as erroneous.

What you don't believe in is just that, it is what you do not believe in. Religious beliefs can be silly, but the idea of intelligent design shouldn't be discarded as myth.

There have been plenty of scientists who have converted to believing in that "myth" mid-way through their scientific careers. The "myth" is very much alive, and still being regarded as a plausible idea.

Because it fits the definition of a fairy tale. Because in all other aspects but the degree of delusion, "God" is identical to the leprechaun.

It only fits the definition of a fairy tale if you do not believe in it.

The sole difference is that people believe in it; there is no more evidence, no more logical basis.

And what evidence is there that a "God" does not exist? Also, how would you define "God"?

I have never said it is wrong for someone to believe in "God" or that they are inferior for it - my argument is that such a belief is illogical.

You have stated multiple times that it is a fairy tale belief. How would that not be some sort of attempt to make theists seem inferior to you? After all, a fairy tale is not much more than a children's story containing imaginary beings. Even saying that the belief is illogical is a show of authority, because that is an opinion-based statement. We do not know if a "God" exists or not.

I refuse to treat a completely unfounded assertion as equally credible to logic and reason, and I reject the premise that doing so leads to progress.

That is because you are stubborn, no offense. How would theistic and atheistic minds coming together not lead to progress?

It is at precisely the point where religion and purely subjective belief are lent that credibility that they exert their greatest harm - suppression of science, persecution of dissent, etc.

I am not saying that one group should gain authority over the other, and I'm really not even saying that clearly contradicted religious myth should be included in the discussion, but the idea of an intelligent creator should not be discarded as illogical and not worthwhile.

If "God" did exist then "God" would be an objective reality, the presence of which could be objectively observed.

How do you know that? We could be limited by our five senses. If all humans could only see in black and white, then we certainly could not comprehend color. There are animals and insects that see the world physically different than us. So their reality is much different than ours. How do we know that what we are seeing is the true reality? It is true to us, sure, but it is limited.

I would expect actual evidence of the existence of "God" to be derived therefrom.

And what would that evidence look like? At what point would you say, "That's it! That's God..."?

I am actually quite familiar with multiple conceptualizations of the "God within us" view, and would appreciate it if you stopped assuming my atheism is a counter to the Judeo-Christian "God" exclusively as I have said nothing to indicate that.

Sorry, but it seemed to me like you have a narrow interpretation of "God". Much of that was due in part to how often you use the term religion. However, if I misinterpreted that, then my bad!

I have no idea what you mean by "the God ingredient."

It is the evidence you supposedly need to prove that "God" exists.

As for our purpose, what makes you so certain we have one? And why do we need to reject the how, the science?

“One must find the source within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking -- a detour, an error.” - Hermann Hesse

This has much to do with my own personal spiritual beliefs, but I do think the why is the question each individual needs to find the answer to. I can't really tell you how to go about it, because that kind of defeats the purpose. Science will not answer the why, but it will do a great job answering the how, so I do not believe we should discard it in that sense. The best to do is not let the how get in the way of the why. It is okay to find the answer to both.

As for our purpose, I do believe we have one, but that is my own personal belief. When searching for the answer to why, you may come to a different conclusion... But to only stick with the how and disregard the why, is doing yourself a great injustice, in my opinion.

Just because people can make different interpretations does not make those interpretations equally logical.

It does not make them unequally illogical either. Neither interpretation really has all the information available, so it would be safe to say that logic in those situations is subjective. If you want to argue that your subjective opinion is more likely to be true than my subjective opinion, then that is fine. It doesn't really lead us to a definitive answer of who is right and who is wrong, though. However, that is not my intention anyways, but it is rather to put forth ideas, ones you may not agree with do to your bias, which is also fine. Neither of us carries the burden of proof, because we both carry different beliefs, both using science to back up our opinions. Backing up our opinions, is not backing up any facts, so when we get to the point where we find something to be more logical than another, that is a reflection of what we think is the better argument, even though either one of us may be jumping to conclusions too soon. The safer approach would probably be to judge each idea equally, but as humans, we tend to lean towards a bias, then we kick each other in the head because we wish everyone shared the same opinion as us.

If "God" is only energy then the term is grossly misapplied so as to render the very concept of "God" redundant.

Some call it "God" or "Allah", "Brahma" or "Atman", the "Great Spirit" or "Holy Spirit", scientists call it energy... It really doesn't matter what you call it, does it?

However, to a theist, energy has much more meaning than to a scientist.

Why call a specific scientific phenomenon anything but its specific name?

It is just a name. Do you think that energy was discovered with a name tag on it? Different cultures refer to things differently.

It is a facile attempt to attach the abstract faith associated with "God" to the legitimacy of objective scientific fact.

And what if the discovery of energy was actually the discovery of what all these religions have been referring to? In that case, they gave a name to something that had a different name before. What makes you think that the name is even important? What if science has already unknowingly acquired the evidence to prove that God exists, aka "the God ingredient", and they attached a scientific term to it?

That "great minds" have believed in God does not imbue the idea of "God" with sudden respectability

That is also opinion based, and a denied call for respectfulness towards others opinions, is silly.

If a "great mind" happened to believe that leprechauns really did exist would that actually make the argument respectable?

You cannot compare "God" to a leprechaun, just as you cannot compare Alexander the Great to Santa Claus. We know that a leprechaun was made up, and we know that Santa Claus was made up, but where the Alexander the Great and God comparison comes into play, is that we have little evidence for the existence of either, but we treat Alexander the Great as a true historical figure, and rightfully so in my opinion, but "God" is also taught as a real being. You don't have to believe God is real, just as you do not have to believe Alexander was real. Belief in either should be respectable, because they are both taught as being real.

However, through observation we can conclude that snakes don't talk and every animal could not fit on the ark, and inconsistencies can be found throughout all religions. That is part of the reason I am not religious, but belief in intelligent design is not far-fetched, although it would be in your opinion, but through observation we can conclude that you don't know jack-shit... No offense, neither do I... But we have different opinions, and blasting others away as if we hold ultimate knowledge towards the secrets of the universe is pathetic and a waste of time, when we could combine minds and take each other's ideas into consideration and actually open our minds to the fact there can be other answers then what we think they may be.

"Great minds" are ultimately still human minds, and subject to fallacy and error.

A fact we could all take into consideration, right?

There is a neuro-biological predisposition to faith and religion, and all other intelligence accepted the basic reality of such specific disposition and the general fallibility of every human mind renders your argument incorrect.

And to someone who is religious, they would probably interpret that "neuro-biological predisposition to faith and religion" as "God" trying to guide them. You obviously don't, because you have a bias, just as they do. You are simply pointing out the gears in a clock, not the purpose of the clock. Of course, with certain things you probably see no purpose, but that doesn't mean there isn't. It is important to understand how easily things can be changed in the eyes of the beholder. What authority do you have to say that any of them are wrong?

At no point have I belittled anyone for their belief in God.

Oh, yes... You certainly have. This entire debate has seemed much like an attempt on your part to diminish the belief in "God" as being nothing more than a fairy tale.

I personally place no value judgement upon degree of logicality, but do give personal preferentiality to that which is more logical.

It seems more like you give more preferentiality to that which you consider more logical, discarding the fact that it may very well be illogical. Of course, as far as logic goes, it is based on fact... But that logic does not extend to whether or not a "God" exists, and in no way do the facts disprove "God"... However, I have no problem admitting they do not prove "God" either, so it is really just silly to claim that either one of our beliefs is illogical.

I do not look down upon the religious, nor presuppose them to be less logical than myself on other matters.

Just as you would not look down on a fairy tale belief? Also, we are not directly referring to the religious, as you agreed earlier... Although, they do fit into the category of theists.

Kindly dispense with your presumptions of my views.

I will be happy to once you provide me with a non-contradictory reason to think otherwise.