The irritation is that this was never a casual conversation. At some point, this probably was a casual conversation. Until one party stands up and says, "There is a God. He created us. He governs us." At that point, yes, I believe there should be an outcry for scientific proof.

I don't have any problems with a casual conversation. I would be entirely happy if two skeptical parties argue with each other. Would I be a bit biased against the side claiming there's an intelligent designer? Yes. That, as I detailed in another comment, is because saying there's an intelligent designer simply adds another layer of direction. "How was the Universe created?" "By an intelligent designer." "And how was the intelligent designer created?" "He just was." is no worse/better than "How was the Universe created?" "It just was."

As for substantiating my beliefs, I maintain my stand. This debate did not start with me. Someone somewhere cooked up the entire idea behind personal God, in some form of a religion, without substantiating their beliefs. I simply ask those who follow that ideology to substantiate theirs, and if they can't, stop believing in it.

I further plead you to stop with the personal attacks. You group me with some sort of "regular Slashdotter" looking for "effortless slam-dunk victory", although you might have failed to notice that I made my first comment in this thread. I felt like I could contribute to the discussion; if you disagree, stop responding, but don't revert to personal attacks while claiming to be a supporter of a level playing field.

If I make a ridiculous claim right now - let's say, there are fairies underneath your garden, and that they can't be detected via any method known to man - would you be able to provide empirical evidence for the contrary? From your limited experience and worldview, one limited by current times' technology, yes, you would believe (hopefully) that the fairies aren't there, but would you be able to prove so? No.

I think agnosticism and atheism are bound by a thin line from where you assert that the original assertion is so ridiculous that you don't need to provide empirical evidence to the contrary (in cases like this, you even - as of now - just can't). For me, I draw the line a bit before religion.

Why is the original assertion (of there being an intelligent designer) ridiculous, in this case? I'd like to first make it clear that I think the entirety of this discussion is about "how did we (Universe) come into existence?" With "intelligent designer" as the answer, you're simply off-loading the question. If any such designer does exist, my view of the Universe would extend to include the intelligent designer, and I'd ask "how did we (Universe & intelligent designer) come into existence?"

I'm not saying "no deity can exist". What I'm saying is that since there's NO proof of one, no "rational framework" that verifies the truth of the existence of any deity, we shouldn't consider their existence in the first place. The question as to how we came into existence does have "deities" as a plausible answer, but if that be the case, I'm more curious as to how the deities came into existence.

I've been using WhatsApp since about a year. I live in the Asian part of our globe, which is credited for hosting the majority of WhatsApp users.

As for why I use it, I'm unsure. Everyone I use it to contact with has got data plans. We're all on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Hangouts, all of which offer some form of "direct messages". A majority of us are also on Viber, BBM, and other such platforms. I only started using WhatsApp because my comrades used it, although it offers no attractive features.

I like to see both as special cases of "ridiculous claims".

Since it's almost impossible to have evidence for the non-existence of something which, by definition, doesn't have much "proof" for its existence anyway, do we seriously consider all such claims?

Let me put it this way: I can make infinite creatively worded claims, which can in no manner be disproved by you. Do I say that both our versions of the truth, where yours doesn't include my claims to be true, stand an equal chance, because "no one has any indication either way in terms of hard evidence"?

To put a realistic example through, I can claim I'm telepathic. I can also claim that I'll certainly not show you my telepathic powers, because it's a fact that you must take on "faith". Since there's no indication in either way in terms of hard evidence, as to whether I'm telepathic or not, do you just be "agnostic" about it? How can you, in said scenario, have hard evidence that I'm not telepathic?

Or do you just go on to say that whether I'm telepathic or not isn't a scientific query, it's ridiculous to pretend it is, it's not falsifiable, and everyone should have personal believes on me being telepathic?

That's Bertrand Russell, in an article titled "Is There a God?"

The idea that God does not exist isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. Those who do have a belief on the other hand, have the burden of proof, and failure to own up to it gives others the right to ridicule them. :-) Now, if someone asks me if there's a China teapot revolving around the sun, should I say "I don't know" or "It's highly improbable (given that we've analysed the Sun with great detail, and... China teapot's just don't orbit the sun), so much so that we can safely say no"? The burden of proof lies on the claimant, and not the defendant.