> You seem to imply that holding philosophical beliefs about our purpose somehow is an indicator of intelligence or lack of and of ones ability to logically analyze the subject.

I don't know if I implied it, but yes – if what you believe in is false and can be easily tested and verified to be false and still manage to sink belief in it, and profess others to do the same or "you'll go to hell", otherwise – you're not intelligent.

To use a poor analogy: In Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (original one, not the shit one from a few years ago), a dude named Mike TV is teleported from one TV to another. During this process Mike is scrambled up into tiny little squares and carried to the other side of the room where the tiny squares are put back together. Magic. Now, since I don't understand how analog/radio signals work, I could just take this as my way of explaining it. It's much easier than talking about radio waves and all of that techy stuff. The trouble is, no one would ever allow me to disseminate this garbage theory to anyone. People will tell me I was misleading people and lying to them. Turns out, misleading people is bad.

So in trying to explain the world around us, why should I be okay with a ideology with so many holes? Talking snakes? Really? Before you come back (and not address the talking snakes, noah's arc, etc), try not to separate the religious theology from the religion – because religion specifically tells you not to do that, however more convenient it may make your argument.

> In my opinion religious people have strong cases for an architect in their arguments

The problem with the hyper-atheist movement is that it has told the 'other side' that they should stop thinking about how their story evolves. My arguments aren't against an architect, just that we don't know shit about the architect or that there is an architect. Pretending we do is a lie. If a god comes down and announces himself, I'll be the first believer. Until then, I'm on the fence watching bullshitters disseminate bullshit.

> For lifestyle reasons such as partying, drinking and a highly active sex life they rejected religious based moral code

No. If that's the case, Catholics should be atheist because they are easily the highlight of debauchery-related news. There is definitely a sense of freedom where you can dictate your own path. Whether that leads to drinking, or drugs is moot. Oppression also causes poor behaviour, let's not forget.

> I would like to state my intention is not to support religion or atheism, but rather to play devils advocate in hopes of helping others..

Nope. You're religious. You come to a place where the main occupation is programming; a vice that shows illogic the door unfavourably and expect to hear clamour at the idea of global misinformation dissemination. Not to mention call athiests drug, alcohol addled fiends.

To be an atheist, it means you start with a blank piece of paper and only fill in what is verifiable truth. As a religious person, the plan is to start with a fully drawn picture and struggle to grey out the more awful points. It's common for people to see atheism as a 'holier than thou' exhibition. But really, it's religious folk who start off claiming to know it all.