Science has nothing to say about "God", so long as nobody can say anything about God. But if God has any properties or takes any actions or in any way affects the universe, then science can detect it. Religious people need to decide whether God is any different from -- um -- well, any different from nothing, and if it is, then science has something to say about it.

The flaw leads to the failure of the argument -- or, symbolically, its death.

fatal/ftl/
Adjective:
1. Causing death.
2. Leading to failure or disaster.

I don't dismiss people who might think it did as complete crackpots

You should start. It will save you from dealing with a huge amount of bullshit.

Look up skepticism. The gist is that you accept ideas (n.b.: not 'believe' them) when there is compelling evidence for them, and reject them (not 'disbelieve' them) otherwise. Thus, you should reject magical nonsense, because there is no evidence for magical nonsense. [To be clear, "God" is magic, because "God" is capable of breaking natural laws.]

Also, evolution is "circumstantial" in the way that everything is circumstantial. Evolution is literally the best-ever supported scientific theory, with hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence. It is stupid to sit around wondering if maybe hundreds of millions of pieces of evidence are all part of a cosmic deistic ruse.

They are religious zealots that view anything that contradicts their world view as a threat.

Yes, and they are correct: science is a threat to their world view and their entire religion. Yes, there is a conspiracy of scientists and like-minded people to promote naturalism at the expense of traditional beliefs. That's all true, it's just not bad. It's good.

Is that Minchin? I recognize your quote there, but not your sig quote. Minchin is amazing. My favorite, from that same 'song', is "every mystery ever solved has turned out to be NOT MAGIC".

Well, you're wrong about the context thing, but you are right about not respecting nonsense stories people tell one another to make themselves feel special. Who would respect that?

Do you mean magical free will, or nonmagical free will?

I suspect you mean magical free will, but that does not exist, because there's no such thing as magic.

I think Colin's point was that "to sue" someone means "to file a lawsuit against" someone. Even if a judge rules for the government on the basis of sovereign immunity, that still means a judge is making a decision, which means the case is already in court, which means somebody has already filed a lawsuit against the government, which means somebody "has sued" the government. If it were true, as you said, that "you cannot sue the government without their permission", that would mean that the filing clerk would deny your filing.

Ha! You said Visual Studio is "good". I can only imagine someone saying that if they have never in their lives used any other IDE, and if that person has absolutely no imagination whatsoever. VS is not nearly as good as any of the open-source IDEs I've ever used. VS daily makes me want to stab myself in the eyeball with a dull pencil.

I suspect that your post was flamebait in that regards; your main point, though, is correct: the OP untenably equated VS dev with Windows dev.

This is the obvious answer. I hardly think he was doing it for the money. He was doing it to get away with it, because he felt a compulsion to do it. Alas, in our civil society, we expect people to overcome their compulsions.