Well I apologise if you think I'm being intentionally obtuse -- I'm not one to try to avoid an argument, especially about religion.

You originally said:

> Atheism is a faith that elevates Me to the status of God ...

That's what I railed against. It assumes that once you've determined there's probably no gods, that you then have a gap that needs filling. I don't expect any atheists think that way.

Interesting reference to scientology and humans as deities - given, again, the TFA was all about the presence of Jesus in human form, plus the confusion and splintering within the church that the rather clumsy construct of the trinity caused.

I mentioned evolution because you suggested that atheists think that we (humans) are the apex. Once you understand evolution you realise there's no direction, and certainly no stable state, let alone ultimate apex. Humans have been on the planet for such a tiny amount of time, and there's nothing to suggest that we're the best thing that the evolutionary process can generate.

Yes, as you say, we're the most powerful consciousness on this planet right now -- but that's like those towns that have signs attesting that they have "the longest single span bridge ... crossing an east-west river ... that has a w in its name ... in the southern hemisphere ... built before 1857".

That is, it's such an exuberantly qualified assertion that, while true, it's more distracting than useful. We may well not be the most powerful consciousness in the universe, and we're almost certainly not going to be the most powerful consciousness ever to have lived once everything wraps up.

And no, as above, I don't think 'it was bound to happen', as that implies an intent to achieve the current state of the universe. It did happen, and that's a sufficiently fascinating situation to keep us busy.

As to your last question -- I think saying 'it just happened' is to give up on some potentially very interesting lines of enquiry. But I don't think it's necessary to invoke a 'higher intelligent creative force' to address any questions around the process. In any case, you then have to contend with the problem I mentioned in my last reply -- if you do think a higher intelligent creative force is necessary to explain whatever gaps remain today, how do you confidently pick the right one from the myriad religions available?. Wikipedia suggests there's around 4,200 religions.

Also without trying to sound snarky, most religious people can't satisfactorily address this one. AFAICT most people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents, and that doesn't set off as many alarm bells for them as I would expect.

EDIT: Forgot to address this bit:

> Nonsense. There is no conflict with evolution in a deliberately created world. It's no different from any other complex mechanism. Folks who say otherwise, religious or not, are manufacturing conflict.

My understanding is that there is a conflict, at least with some religious people / religions.

First, the obvious one -- evolution denies the Adam & Eve myth, which then precludes original sin, which then renders the salvation story somewhat irrelevant.

Second, in Christian scripture it's asserted that humans (well, man) was made in the image of the deity. So, if we either voluntarily architect ourselves or evolve naturally into something different, several possible implications ensue, including: we were evidently not made as good as we could/should have been, which suggests the image was not optimum, and/or the deity will be upset that we aren't happy with the image we were made in.