@BT,
Thanks. :)


@Alternate bro,
Thank you for the detailed analysis and colourful argument. It was a pleasure going through it. I would have
prefered not to indulge in semantics but yes you are right. I do not identify myself as a Theist because i am not
religious and my search for divine knowledge is not based on religion but Science itself. So i choose the second
best option which is Agnostic Theist. Yes you are right, my belief does tend to overlap but i think that is not
avoidable in such a debate. When an Atheist seeks a religion free world, i like to make a counter argument as i
do not seek one. So even i am not into religion myself, i would still support it merely based on the fact that
search for divine knowledge by itself is not evil.

I supported William lane craig on his stand on morality, not his religious stand. I have seen a lot of Christian
debators though and they do bring forward relevant arguments. If you listened to that debate, he has said that he
is not speaking of the christian God, but God in general in relation to morality. Appealing to humanity for basis
of morality is not scientific as Science cannot guide morality. In a morality freedom world, what is good for the
goose is not always good for the gander. How am i hinting towards an omnipotent/omniscient God by infering thus?.

There is nothing to cite. I like to make brief arguments. For example, i said love is not scientifically
quantifiable nor understandble, what is there to cite?.

Yes Atheism is growing but appealing to numbers is a logical fallacy. Some people simply become Atheists to
appear "cool". It is like those Nepali guys who learn to play guitar and smoke just to appear "cool".
The population of honeybees is decreasing at an alarming rate, so is that good?. Heart disease is growing along
with cancer, is that good?.