Have you noticed how much fun it is to fool yourself by attacking and condemning someone else for "feeling smug and superior" in such a manner that it makes you feel smug and superior to them?
Like,"Those religious folks think their religion makes them better than us atheists, but us atheists are really better than those religious folks because we don't go around feeling superior like they do".
Or, "Those atheist folks think their atheism makes them better than us religious folks, but us religious folks are really better than those atheist folks because we don't go around feeling superior like they do".
Ever notice how easy it is to fool yourself?
Ever notice how much fun it is?
I thinking ranking oneself as superior or inferior in comparison to other people pretty much goes with the territory of being human. It's almost impossible to escape doing it. So why should we condemn people for doing it? It is one thing to point out to folks that they are doing it -- but why try to condemn them for it? Does condemning people for feeling superior or inferior to you make any sense to you? Do you think condemning people is gong to change human nature? If so, why? If not, why not?
You're acting like there's something wrong with this.
This is human behavior.
The universe is set up in such a way that it is religiously neutral with a slight bias to theism (that is, assuming we don't believe in biocentrism where we humans created everything with our minds, and assuming we don't assert a universe that is eternal, denying these two things makes you a dumbass because you will them have to prove how an original creation happened without an original creator), and a tendency to amplify bias. Honestly, if you put forth an argument that doesn't work you need to be mocked publicly in order so you'll come up with a better one. If not for censorship, learning would take place, and atheists would become better atheists. The natural state of the world is to reduce faulty assumptions and strengthen the core beliefs. That is, Christians through their encounter with the world become stronger Christians, while atheists become more convinced atheists.
You may see it as being smug but it's like this. Suppose you have a child who is never told no. Do they learn and grow and become responsible adults? No, they usually become whiny psychopaths and poor human beings. In the same way, ppl who always get easy A in debate, and then get a pass because mods confuse the gentle correction of saying "no you're ****ing wrong" for smugness and arrogance, then arguments continue to be of poor quality.
So, creation without a creator doesn't work (especially since you're borrowing theistic ideas from Lemaitre in the form of Big Bang), nor does asserting the universe is random chance (for the same reason typing random gibberish with monkeys will NEVER make Shakespeare level poetry but rather gmhfkhssdurscuydmhdtjrxkcykdtkwcgcycoiyciycvoyro), neither does trying to categorically defy everything theism says regardless of logic. If you want to actually have a chance, eternal universe works, as does a cyclic universe, as does the idea space aliens did it, or that humans imagined reality. All of these things are possible to at least sorta defend. But the traditional method of stating atheism is like sawing legs from a table and expecting it to stand.
Likewise, asserting that God is perfect as well as omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and always good is likely to run into the problem of evil. Likewise the assertion that Jesus is the only way into Heaven will have to explain the ppl before Jesus, and those those in remote places.
It's like one of Jesus's own parables, of a man who built a tower but didn't have materials, and was mocked for it. If you have an argument but no way to follow through, to make it work, you get mocked.
