Do you agree with that statement?

Who or what made the maker? And who made that maker?

Intelligent design on that level is a fallacy.

No. There are several flaws in the reasoning:

1) The shape of an object may have other explanations then chance and creation. The stones in a riverbed all tend to be rounded. We atheist understand that natural processes and not the handicraft by some god.

2) You fail to explain the "similar reasoning".

3) If everything was created by gods then there is nothing uncreated to compare with! Thus you cannot say "This has the marks of creation and this hasn't".

4) Would the first thing to exist just by chance be such a complex thing as a god??

This would be a reasonable philosophical point if we did not know exactly how biological complexity came about by natural processes. Because we do, it does not really work.

I am not sure about your logic either. If we saw a sculpture, it would be logical to assume that a person made it. Gods don't make sculptures, do they? And yet you then seem to suggest that this somehow proves a god?

How do you get from

One type of being is responsible for this

to

This proves something completely different is responsible for something with a similar characteristic.

This is a bit like saying.

'we know that ovens are required to make bread so therefore it's logical to assume that an aardvark is required to make cake.'

You're saying that everything that exists needs a creator, except your god. That's called special pleading. I honestly don't understand how otherwise intelligent people can close their eyes to their irrational thinking year after year, decade after decade.

If there were evidence for any gods, everyone would know about it. Scientists would compile it, and write peer reviewed articles about it. The reason god belief requires faith is because there is no evidence. Convoluted apologetics are trotted out to cover up for the lack of evidence, as though a god can be spoken into existence.

Scientists don't tell people they deserve to be tortured, and will be, if they don't accept scientific theories. They don't tell us we have to believe in antibiotics for us to see them, or for them to work. They give us access to their methods and their papers. Everyone is free to try to prove them wrong, without threats of torture before or after death.

Religion requires people who can't think for themselves, because people who are capable of critical thinking don't buy the crap they're shoveling.

Nothing real requires faith.

.

No. We have seen hewn stones in the past, and we have seen humans hew them. We can hew them ourselves.

On the other hand, we have never seen any of ten thousand gods ever proposed, nor have we observed any effect of them, nor have they left any evidence whatsoever of their existence. Hence, no evidence for any god, whether he be named Zeus, Mithras, or Krishna. (Those are the gods you are asserting right?)

No, I don't. It's just a long, overly wrought example of a classic fallacy. I'm even too tired to point out which one.

Still it does not convince the 'No Designer' crowd.

No. It's a cop out.