I find it hypocritical, given much of the argument is villafying those who are religious, that a non-religious person can bash a religious person for being 'controlling, evil, sheep, etc. etc.' with the notion that they are NOT 'controlling, evil, sheep, etc. etc.' and yet they're supporting the same ideas of those they're bashing.
It's like "hey you're *this* because you persecute me" but if the shoe was on the other foot, guess what....then those they accuse will say "hey you're *this* because you persecute me"
What makes it even more interesting is that, given we haven't even begun to really 'leave' this planet and go to other planets, that we've only 'begun' to touch the advancements of technology, and we still haven't even figured out why we can only consciously use 10% of our brain, among other mysteries, we have the audacity to claim we have 'proof' of non-existence of a deity; even though we're still learning.
God is a pretty big claim, a very COMPLEX, AND HUGE mystery, finding out there are other planets out there, galaxies, hell a UNIVERSE in general was a big find, figuring out how to FLY was a pretty big discovery, that the earth was round, that there's an existence of black holes, and even the hodge particle, the clue of how mass came to be....those are PRETTY BIG mysteries being solved/uncovered.
Those were things that 'non-believers' were pretty damn adamant about believing those DIDN'T exist; In fact some people died over it too. So here again the dilemma arises again, and people are pretty damn adamant about it NOT existing. Why would you biasely decide on something that you really have no clue on except vague details about it? I don't see scientists making bias claims on black holes and that 'God' particle (which they hate it being called by the way). Nor about a lot of other theories slowly building into a factual case. So why sit there and be adamant about no God when you certainly know vague info about it?
"Well what about magical fairies, unicorns and the tooth fairy..blah blah." They do exist, from the minds of the authors that created them or from some correlation to things that DO EXIST. Hell UNICORNS possibly spawned from sitings of extinct animals in the past. Narwhals have unicorn-like horns, OBVIOUSLY that could be a clue to something bigger than the pathetic excuse that "oh well are unicorns real? Why not? Cuz you can't see or know about dem durrr?" They may not be the obvious or LITERAL beings as stated, but they correlate to a history of something else that may have existed. The idea of Santa Claus is based off a guy that actually existed...may not have flown on a carriage with reindeer, but it's BASED off an existing person.
I think there's more to God than what the Bible or anyone else claims, has to be...everyone has their reasons for things, I have mine.
But bashing someone on their bias notion or their own 'belief' is hypocritical and foolish. I may not like country to much, but I understand WHY folks like it, and I've learned to like some of the music as well. I won't listen to a lot of it, but I appreciate the understanding of its value. I don't go to country music lovers and go "hey, did you know country music is the number one music genre for the most suicides? It's evil music that only induces suicide, it should be abolished." Because that's a biased opinion, it's stupid, and only makes you look foolish.
my 2 cents.