Einstein was not a believer of any of the supernatural practices or beliefs of religion. He may very well have been a Deist however. I can appreciate this position. Belief in some kind of "higher power" without any of the crazy mumbo jumbo. I just wonder what people found this belief upon.

Oftentimes people say that the universe and Earth are so intricately fine-tuned for our survival that there must be a God; this is a silly statement considering only about 15% of the Earth is inhabitable by humans.

Disclaimer: this is only one point of contention. Just keeping the discussion going.

The fine-tuning argument is more concerned with the large scale requirements for a life-supporting universe. It focuses on the conditions needed for such things as the formation of stars and a life supporting rate of expansion for the universe. I would not say the argument is silly because only 15% of the Earth is inhabitable by humans. First, the argument is not concerned with human life. It is concerned with life in general. Second, the argument does not say where or how much life will be produced. It just sets the parameters that must be met in order for life to develop. There could only be one case of life in the universe, but the universe would still be life-supporting.

Personally, the best argument I've heard for God concerns justifying the principle of uniformity. The principle of uniformity says that the future will be like the past. This is not a logical truth because it is not a contradiction to deny it. It is also not an observational truth because any inductive argument showing why the future is like the past is already assuming the future is like the past. In order to prove the principle of uniformity, someone would have to already assume the principle of uniformity. This is the point that David Hume reached, and he resorted to concluding the principle of uniformity was a matter of custom or habit.

However, we could say that the principle of uniformity is true because it is a simpler explanation than the alternative. Namely, it is simpler to assume that the future is like the past than assume the future is different than the past. Now we have to justify the principle of simplicity (Ockham's razor). We cannot resort to experience because this would be circular reasoning. Furthermore, Ockham's razor only makes sense in a universe where unneeded parts are not left lying around. In other words, the universe needs to be rationally structured in order for Ockham's razor to be true. A rational universe cannot be explained through observation, and hence science, as this would be circular reasoning. From here, it can be argued that God is the cause of the rational universe.

Just for reference, the principle of uniformity is concerned with time-dependent inductive arguments. For example, a rock fell at 9.8m/s² every day in the past, therefore it will fall at the same rate tomorrow. This argument depends on the future being like the past, and this is the kind of argument the principle of uniformity  addresses.

Belief in God isn't a problem pal. Nutjobs like Kim Jong Il and Yasser Arafat are the problem.

funny video.... in case you didn't know the Anti-Christ according to Rev will actually be two people, one political (the main one) and one religious (someone like the Pope). Hollywood and  the media loves to make it simple and focus only on the political one.

yeah, belief in God is so awful, it was only a major component in Manifest Destiny that led to the creation of the United States by Christians, as well as the backbone of Christian societies which are directly responsible for the majority of facets in modern life. 

perhaps aethiests shouldn't be so insecure about their beliefs and they could see the positive outcomes that belief in God have led to. 

Manifest Destiny? i really hope that you're being sarcastic about this one...

0_o Ditto, anarchyz. Wtf? Manifest Destiny is responsible for the deaths of countless native americans. ("God wants us to expand west no matter what so it shouldn't matter if we slaughter our way there herp derp")

It's an awful point to make. Belief in God turned a potentially peaceful expansion plan into a course of destruction.

LOL . You do know two of the greatest civilizations in America were destroyed long before the white man set foot on the land. One of the things draw men west was gold.  Also I thought it was guns that helped the western civilizations to expanded. Thus white men were shooting other white men France, England, Spain  with Indians sometimes on either or both sides.  You know what each of these  nations have in common ? A government.

 One of the reasons  why western governments are not expanding like their were in the past is not because they are now more righteous but the extreme high cost of war.

The Vikings were at first conquerers and violent which what most of history focus on. They even destroy churches in England but that was for just a short time. In reality most Viking were peaceful and join churches in England. (the gospel converted many Vikings) But we like to focus more on the short violent years instead of the many years living in peace in England.

i havent been online for a month or so ( i moved in another city, it took me a week and a half to get my internet back) so m posting this just to see if someone is still checking this thread bacause otherwise, it would be stupid to quote the people who quouted me.