It's not a matter of even one day creating life in a lab, or smashing two atoms and a whole universe popping out from it. You would have to reproduce those things without any cause. That's what an "atheistic explanation" would imply. (Even if the cause turns out to be some higher race of creatures, then what created them and their universe?) But then if it's without cause, then it would by it's very nature not be "reproducing", as just our causing it would defeat the test. So something like that is by its nature not testable. You can say that because it's not testable, then it can't be known. I would not be be bothering to argue against that. But people are doing more than that, if they can mock other people's proposed explanations like that.
And we have modified our theories based on the evidence that has presented itself. Hence, we no longer insist God directly causes every lightning bolt, or is a man sitting on a giant chair in the sky, and many of us have backed off of young earth, global flood, God literally patting together mounds of dirt to make the first man or animals, etc. But you would think we were still arguing that stuff, with some of these arguments, and this "cosmic zombie" or "pink unicorns" stuff.
The natural explanation of lightning is something that is likely because natural evidence has been observed. Actually, that still does not make God "unlikely" as the cause, either directly, or indirectly through setting those natural laws in place. We can never know, but we can use the evidence to understand how it works. Where religion was sorely misguided was in setting the natural against the divine, so that it had to be either nature OR God, and one excludes the other. This is what has set the tone for the whole debate, as science seems to assume if it has a natural explanation, then that's one more strike against God. It's like if we build something with materials using the laws of nature, and then someone comes and observes the natural aspect of it and concludes it must have put itself together purely by natural processes.
Another problem is the rigid definition of "evidence" as only something we can "falsify" or test in a lab. Demand of empirical evidence is a Te method, as logic is seen as valid only if it is externally based. And the entire field of science is shaped by a Te dominated culture. Including psychology. Type theory faces the same thing, and is basically dismissed supposedly because of some lack of "accuracy" in MBTI and other instruments. But to me, the THEORY can stand apart from the measurement tools. The cognitive functions, expressed and wanted behaviors of temperament, etc. are all things we experience, and can observe in others. Now granted, that's much more than theism can claim as evidence. But even that is not good enough for mainstream psychology. If the tests are accurate enouygh, the theory has no value. And it even gets trashed as a fairy tale just like religion does, with some calling it a "cult", and stuff like that. The same thing with string theory ("Not even wrong"! It needs bigger particle accelerators to do its tests which no one is funding yet, but to me it is still a very good theory).
So an internal logical mindset can look at the theoretical evidence that life (and the complexity of the universe and the laws that shaped it into everything we see) cannot come from absolutely nothing and then develop all by itself, and deduce that there must be some sort of higher intelligence. Now, this is not absolutely proven externally, but the theory then cannot be dismissed as "irrational". But that's what people continue to do. They argue as if it is not even possible (
Ne) due to lack of empirical evidence (Te).
Well then, what was the point of Mycroft insinuating that we "believe reality is only a matter of personal opinion and perspective" and thus interjecting our own wishes? For that was what I was responding to. If your side says we are doing it, then it is possible for you to be doing it too, and then throwing out that accusation is just a roundabout distraction that makes it sound like an assumtion that you are always totally objective in contrast to us.Nobody from 'my side' would ever claim that they are infallible, or somehow above their subjective opinions and perspective. It is a strawman on your part to claim that people from 'my side' hold these views.
But it seem the only answer you will accept is, as it has been stated above, an "owning up" of our belief is "irrational", and as your side mocks and derides it, we wouldn't even get "worked up". We would just happily accept our status as idiots worshiping a cosmic zombie. Basically asking the other side to drop out of the race while both are still at the starting line.