Philosophically speaking, if intelligence did not evolve, that means it was given.
If that's the case, who gave it to God?
This is very much a "have your cake and eat it too" scenario. If we say that intelligence must be granted, that means it would have needed to be granted to God as well. And then whoever granted it to God would have also needed it granted; again, just a different form of infinite regressions. If we do not say that, then intelligence is a perfectly reasonable result of evolutionary events (philosophically speaking).
The only way around the inifinite regressions issue, philosophically speaking, is to say that existence always existed, and that intelligence was developmental.
This entire conversion proves the Agnostic conclusion that ignorance ( about religious knowledge) is the rational outcome of thought.
The more said the worse it gets. Does the term "arguing from ignorance" mean anything?
So, how many angels can dance on a ICBM warhead?
Of course, we know that a favorite angle of believers is to say that if someone doesn't beleive as they do then they can only conclude that there is something wrong with that person. They are arrogant, selfish, closed-minded, believing themselves to be gods, yada, yada, yada.
Any claim of arguing from ignorance is simply more of the same; utter BS.
As always, no religion embraces all of mankind, only those elites that will fit in to a self-designed box.
I don't fit. Therefore you are free to look down on me, just like other groups like racists would do when they find others that "don't fit".
Not across the board, of course, there are some notable exceptions, but it's difficult to find a more intense brand of demagoguery than is frequently found on these very forums!
Then if you want you use the "Blame Game", then who does the blame fall upon on? "limit of freedom of thought".
If you look on this site, I think you will find Christians, get very little blame, compared to other groups of people.
I do agree that just blaming without a reason, is only a statement, and not an argument.
I stand by my statement "Religion has a lot to answer for"
This is more a matter of politics than religion. Just more proof that we need to fight to get government out of our social lives by greatly decreasing government and it's ability to rule us rather than to govern.