Debate: Atheists lack religious tolerance
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

One may arguably say within reason that God may not exist, but that’s all,That is all I'm saying. However, since you are the one making the claim, you are the one required to support it. My role is to critique your line of reasoning. You aren't likely to find me providing any reasoning that God is absolutely fictional, you will simply see me highlighting the perceived errors in your reasoning. What is really at the heart of this discussion isn't whether or not God exists, but rather whether it is more rational to accept that he does or to remain critical. My stance is that the critical approach is more logical and honest. and the limits of sensory perception and scientific inquiry have no bearing on the matter whatsoever.They don't have a bearing on the truth of the matter. But, as I stated above, this is really about determining which stance is more rational. And for that, sensory perception and scientific inquiry are perfectly germane to this conversation. Well, I can’t help it if atheists are thickheaded.Pot, meet kettle. We do not get the construct of ultimate divine origin in and of itself from some “outside source”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Sure we do. You can say that attempting to suss out the origins of the universe is essentially inherent, and I will let you go down that path with little argument. We can say that the idea that there was a definite beginning is built into our psyches, but:a) This amounts to an instinct or side effect of our ability to reason. This is not, in and of itself, any closer to truth than saying that the Earth is flat simply because it appears flat from the ground. b) All we are really universally inclined to say is "in the beginning...there was something." The specific details come from whatever faith is being discussed. One god or many? Is it independent of creation or part and parcel with it? Does its origin precede universal creation or coincide with it? A wide range of possibilities have been offered, and these are the "outside sources" i refer to: your family, your spiritual advisers, the very society around you. Its virtually impossible to isolate an individual away from these things and such an experiment would probably be unethical, but if we staged it repeatedly, I'd wager that the idea of God would not be universally emergent. Certainly not your notion of God. What idea of God are you denying? None of them and all of them. On one hand I'm denying the evidence used to support your claim instead of the claim itself. On the other, I submit that all notions of an intelligent, universe-level creative force acting with intent are not imminently supportable (at least not the ones I've been presented with). By definition, God is the transcendent, immaterial, eternally self-subsistence entity.The definitions of God were constructed backwards. What I mean is, if we want to define, say, an apple, we construct the definition based on our observations of what apples are and delineating them from all other objects. But since we can't empirically describe God, we assign our own definitions to him. In order to tie him to everything he is assumed to be responsible for, which is everything, we essentially have to remove all limits to preclude any logical impossibilities that may emerge. We intentionally define God by properties whose very existence are as unsupportable as the concept itself. Name-checking folks like Hawking and others doesn't do much except highlight the appearance of origin, not the nature thereof, as you are trying to claim. They are in fact talking about a material cause, the origin of which remains subject to the problem of infinite regression.Except energy, the substrate upon which everything is built. Which nicely segues into the next part...