1. When one has knowledge, one doesn’t need faith. No faith is required for the examples I cited earlier (about germs and disease, McCartney as a Beatle, etc.). You’re only playing games if you think my asserting what constitutes knowledge is a form of faith.
2. A lack of knowledge of what caused the Big Bang gives people the intellectual right to say “We don’t know what caused the Big Bang.” In the meantime, religious people have zero evidence to assert that a supernatural cause (“God”) is behind it. To assert that there was a supernatural cause behind it when no evidence is provided to support that assertion is incoherent.
3. “Prove the Big Bang happened.” Really? There’s no point in making a request of me when you can investigate the matter on your own. It’s like asking me “Prove germs cause disease” when the answer to that request can be undertaken on your own. Take an interest in cosmology (and in biology, for that matter, if you happen to be confused about the germ theory of disease). That would be a start on your road to knowledge.
4. “God” is an idea in the minds of believers. There is no evidence for this alleged Celestial Being’s existence. Theists love to say, “Look around you! That we and other things exist is the evidence!” Nope, because no causal chain of events exists to show that existence can be traced back to a super-natural cause (deliberate hyphen for emphasis).
5. Rudimentary moral behavior is easily observed in certain animals (dogs, elephants, and chimpanzees come to mind). Circular thinking involves insular thinking: making a claim about something without sourcing outside evidence or material. “The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true” would be a classic case of circular thinking. Observing the behavior of animals that, obviously, exist outside of human activity and then drawing conclusions from such observations (it’s called the scientific method) is not a case of circular thinking.
6. “Such immoral behavior is immoral behavior” is not a circular thinking. I was making a point that “sin” (a religious fiction) does not exist. In other words, instead of writing “Immoral behavior is not a sin because ‘sin’ doesn’t exist” I wrote immoral behavior is immoral behavior, which is to say there’s no need to attach an unhelpful fiction (“sin”) to understand what immoral behavior is. A cat is a cat isn’t circular thinking. It may be redundant (in order to underscore a point) but it certainly isn’t circular. Before diving into cosmology, which, of course, is an extremely complex subject with lots of moving parts, so to speak, you might want to look up “circular thinking.” Doing so should prove helpful.

Barry