And we care about this exactly why ? That's the most funny thing about those left wing/atheist so called "intellingence" that they belive that we should share their beliefs or that anyone cares what they do with their private lives.

Zlejedi said: And we care about this exactly why ? That's the most funny thing about those left wing/atheist so called "intellingence" that they belive that we should share their beliefs or that anyone cares what they do with their private lives.

Well, some people care. They enjoy discussing their beliefs with other people & are interested in what people think. This thread is for them.

Some people don't care. They have no interest in what other people think or believe. They simply keep their beliefs to themselves & ignore everyone else's. This thread is not for them.

Some people are in the middle. They have no interested in other people's opinions, nor do they want to share their own...yet they still care just enough to take advantage of the opportunity to let others aware of their lack of interest (like you). I guess this thread is for you, as well.

...your welcome.

God doesn`t hate anyone. It´s really the other way around. He absolutely loves us even before we were even born/made, that`s why His mercy has no boundaries and that`s why He offered Himself through Jesus to suffer for us so we could once again be in His presence.

If Adam and Eve started our decay it was Jesus divinity and purity who sanctified us once again so we could go to heaven. You don`t erase impurity with impurity, you erase it with purity: That`s why Jesus died and ressurrected.

Yes it is true that we are imperfect, but we are also the ones who chose the path to walk on. And that goes for everything in your life.
"A perfect and all knowing God should have made it so that even the proverbial "village idiot" should be able to find Him--and that is clearly not the case"
Everyone can find Him. You don`t guess Him but that`s not the case here, so to those who know everything you know, ask yourself why they believe and you don`t.
"who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself" - God only asks for you to be responsible for what you do with your freedom and will, for the good and for the bad.

DélioPT said: God doesn`t hate anyone. It´s really the other way around. He absolutely loves us even before we were even born/made, that`s why His mercy has no boundaries and that`s why He offered Himself through Jesus to suffer for us so we could once again be in His presence. If Adam and Eve started our decay it was Jesus divinity and purity who sanctified us once again so we could go to heaven. You don`t erase impurity with impurity, you erase it with purity: That`s why Jesus died and ressurrected. Yes it is true that we are imperfect, but we are also the ones who chose the path to walk on. And that goes for everything in your life. "A perfect and all knowing God should have made it so that even the proverbial "village idiot" should be able to find Him--and that is clearly not the case" Everyone can find Him. You don`t guess Him but that`s not the case here, so to those who know everything you know, ask yourself why they believe and you don`t. "who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself" - God only asks for you to be responsible for what you do with your freedom and will, for the good and for the bad.

Except all the people he hates.

sapphi_snake said: Currently, atheists in Western society often bash religion from a moral standpoint; the Crusades, Jihad, Hitler, etc... Where did they acquire these moral values? The Roman Republic wouldn't have necessarilly thought of Hitler as a terrible person - but the Christian morality sees people like Hitler as terrible - and it is this Christian morality that they view the world with. Without religion as a basis, what objective viewpoint do they haver to criticize Hitler, the Crusades, or Jihad on? For all that they were doing at the time is what served their will to make themselves into the best possible people they could possibly be - but the Christian morality realizes this is wrong - and it is also the basis for the morality which top atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens use as a foundation for why religion is bad. Ummm, you are aware that the Crusades and the Jihad were conflicts fueled by religion, no? (and from one POV, Hitler's movement had religious roots too) Christians were the ones who led the Crusades, and they certainly didn't see them as immoral when they led them (not to mention it's generally atheists who stress the immorality of the Crusades; other than the looting of Constantinopole, I've never heard any christian refer to the Crusades as being 'immoral'). The Catholic Church wouldn't have found someone like Hitler to be too terrible in the past (heck, they did things far worse than Hitler to non-christians and non-catholics). As for the morality issue, read some philosophy books. Plus, since religion is false, it certainly makes a poor foundation for 'objective morality'. Religion is bad because it's immoral, because it results in immoral actions.

Not only have you committed a fallacious argument here, but you have also accused all Christians of being fundamentalists - that's bigotry on your part. You have also neglected to challenge my core argument which is essentially this: The moral values of the western world are based in Christianity.

* Why your argument is falacious - you accuse Christianity of being immoral because it fueled the Crusades which occurred between 720 and 915 years ago:
-The ideal of atheism was one of the chief fuels for the Communist revolutionary wars throughout much of the Eurasian continent during the 20th century.
-The ideal of Patriotism and National spirit fueled World War I, II, and the Prussian wars in my own country - also a spirit strong in the United States today.
-The ideal of Capitalism fueled the Congolese massacre in the 19th and 20th century where workers had their loved ones (wives and children) held captive, and if the men of the family didn't gather enough rubber, their women and children would have their hands cut off. The massacres involved 10.5 million deaths all so Belgians could become wealthy. It also fueled the Boer War which saw genocide against the Boers and Afrikans as they were pushed into concentration camps; all so the English could gain access to gold. Cecil Rhodes, the main instigator of war in Africa for gold and diamonds, is celebrated today with the Rhodes Scholarship, and the Deburs diamond company is still huge.
-The ideal of Freedom fueled the French Revolutionary war, the following Reign of Terror, the military campaigns of Napoleon; the American war of independence and the torturing of United Empire loyalists (tarring and feathering); all of this in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

With your argument, you also accuse atheism, free market, patriotism, and freedom to be immoral. That is why it is fallacious.

* You accuse all Christians as being fundamentalist by saying that they don't disapprove of warfare against people of differing ideologies. This is unequivocally a bigoted accusation. The core beliefs of Christianity are peace and love; and those which do support violence and fundamentalism are not people who are really following the religion as it is written, they're just fans - and I think those types of people are only very frequent in native English speaking countries (maybe Spanish too, I don't know), particularly the United States. Although, in short: saying that religion is immoral because religion causes immorality is circular logic, and there for a logical fallacy.

* Lastly, the reason why I say you haven't come up with any argument against my point is because you haven't shown how atheism can determine an objective morality. Without objective morality, there is no reason why any atrocities, such as Hitler's, can be said to be wrong; when a male Lion commits infanticide, how is that naturally wrong? You asked me to read a philosophy book on morality. I have read many, including Nietzsche who postulated that morals develop from a human's will to power - in essence, for a person to feel as though they are being the best they can possibly be. Nietzsche accused the Christian morality as one holding Germany back - and for the worse, we listened, and I don't think I need to post the results of that. Had the Christian morality prevailed as the dominant morality, it is unlikely that people would have been so willing to accept the glory of war; and I disagree that it held Germany back. On Nietzsche's part, he wasn't able to conceive of a better morality despite his extreme distaste for Christian morality - although, to the misfortune of Europe, many others did.

Andrespetmonkey said:   1. In that Carl Sagen quote you forgot to to highlight the "by some definitions" part. Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no gods, I and most other people don't define it that way. I am an agnostic atheist meaning I don't think there is a god, but I don't know. It just seems unlikely to me. 2. And to the part that I highlighted. It's incredibly easy to know why the idea of gods has arisen. Because people didn't know what caused certain things to happen, they couldn't explain it, our brains are also programmed to see pattern, this is an evolutionary trait. We see "pattern" in the universe and feel the need to attribute it to something, and if we don't understand it, the easiest thing to attribute it to is a god or gods. 3. And I have no idea why you started wrting about morality. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But whatever, I'll give it a shot. The objective viewpoint I have to criticize Hitler, the Crusades and Jihad on is my knowledge of how a successful and happy society works and how the world is a better place when people aren't cunts to eachother. I also don't need an objective viewpoint anyway, since the basis of morality is subjective (empathy).

1. Then you and most people are incorrect about the definition as it is fairly clear. Atheism by definition is the belief that no Gods exist. If you do not assert that no Gods exist, you are not an atheist. Agnosticism is the belief that the knowledge of God is unknowable, so therefore that assertion is not made. Carl Sagan made the implication that Atheism was stupid, he himself was a firm agnostic and freethinker; and he certainly did not believe in a humanoid God. Perhaps you are actually an agnostic? I personally believe that agnosticism is probably the most rational philosophy at this time.

2. It's the simplest explanation, Occam's razor. I agree. Although if you feel that this means it is a false belief, then by definition that argument would commit the genetic fallacy; and would thus be invalid.

3. I believe I covered this in my last post.

 

Anyway, I still don't think you had any arguments against the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments. To briefly highlight them:

The Cosmological Argument
* Everything that had a beginning had a cause for its existence
* The Universe had a beginning
* Therefore - the Universe had a cause for its existence.

Throughout much of modern history, it was believed by the atheist that the universe was eternal, and had no beginning. This, in the 20th century was refuted by evidence that shows that the universe is expanding - The Big Bang Theory.  The Big Bang Theory also states that time, matter,  and space began approximately 13.7 million years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

Since that beginning required a cause of its existence, that cause would have to be beyond the material world, beyond, time, and beyond space. That means that the beginning had to be one of two things, an abstract object such as numbers - or God. Since we know that abstract objects such as numbers can't create, that leaves God as the possibility.

* If the Universe (space, time and matter) has a cause for existence, it must be God.
* Therefore God exists.

Of course, all of this is dependent on the Big Bang Theory being true - currently it is widely accepted by nearly all of the scientific community to be accurate. Other philosophical theories (such as a multiverse, or the crunch) do not have any scientific evidence for them, and the "Big Crunch" has much evidence against it. This also just pushes the beginning back a step, and does not disprove the Cosmological argument.

 

The Teleological Argument
* The Fine Tuning of the Big Bang for the existence of matter and the possibility of life must be due to either: Chance, Law, or Design.
* The probabaility of chance is so small that it is absurd to argue that it is by chance.
* The laws of physics are not dependent of the laws of nature, therefore it is not by law.
* Therefore the Universe was created by Design

Throughout much of modern history, it was often just assumed that the Universe ended up in its current state by chance. Since the 1980's, scientists have been stunned to discover that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine tuned so that the universe can exist the way it currently does; and that is, allowing for life permitting planets to emerge. When the laws of nature are divided into mathematical terms, we find constants - wuch as the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Secondly, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as intitial conditions on which the laws of nature operate (the amount of entropy, or the balance between matter and anti-matter). All of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinary range which allow for a life permitting universe that even if they were moved by a hair, the universe would not be able to have planets such as earth - it would probably not allow for material beyond helium.

String theory predicts that there are about 10 to the 500th power possibilities for a matter and life permitting Universe, - the odds are so incomprehensible that it is not by chance. 

 

The Ontological Argument
* It is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists - we call this God.
* If it is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists, then it is possible that it exists in a conceivable universe.
* If that possibility exists in some universes, then it can exist in all conceivable universes.
* If the greatest being can exist in every conceivable universe, then it exists in the actual universe.
* Therefore the greatest being exists in the actual universe.
* Therefore the greatest being exists
* Therefore God Exists.

There's not really a question of the points 2 through 7, they're logically sound. The first premise is potentially fallable, but I have not seen a good argument against it. Is God's existence possible? The preceding Cosmological and Teleological arguments strongly suggest that Gods existence is highly possible. Therefore given the logical progression of the argument from premise one, God exists.

As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist. However, it IS rational to conclude that human knowledge has not advanced far enough that our sciences are accurate - and again, this does not support atheism in the slightest, but it does support agnosticism.

What are the arguments of atheism? I often see a lot of bigoted comments towards religions as "support" for atheism; but nothing really solid in the form of a well supported and logically sound argument. Agnosticism and theism are the two rational philosophies. Atheism takes a huge leap of faith.

This whole topic is a real pain in the ass. I wish someone would just tell me the truth in a way that makes it possible for me to believe in that said truth. Unfortunately I don't think I'm ever going to find it. If there is a god of some sort, or even several, I only pray that I don't get punished for not knowing the truth because right now, I don't see how I could possibly see what is the truth if there even is one.

Jay520 said: MS10 said:and the reason we have freewill but he ask us to follow his rules here is so he can weed out the bad!because heaven wouldn't be heaven with bad people who do bad things with there freewill.so your born to be tested to see if with your freewill you can handle living forever with other people in heaven so it's great for everyone because we keep our freewill forever.just something for people who don't believe in god or religion to think about! Why would a just God decide to blame the people when they are 'bad' when it is him who gave people their flaws, and it is him who decided to give insufficient evidence of his existence to these flawed people? Why is it that even if one person doesn't find his 'way' (and statisticly speaking, out of billions of imperfect people, some of them are gaurranteed to be 'bad') then that person is blamed and ousted to an eternity of torture?

In my religion, it is believed that God creates all humans as "good" and "pure". In life, the human has the choice of remaining "pure" and "good" by following the suggestions of God, or he can go "bad" by following the temptations of Lucifer/satan. God gave humans a brain to be able to resist the temptations of satan and to ultimately embarrass him by not following his orders. Those humans who constantly do bad are those who have been convinced by satan to do bad. Those who are "good" are those who ignore him. So according to my beliefs, what MS10 said was wrong, because God wants every one of his creations to go to heaven, and there is no "weeding out" of the bad. It's Lucifer's goal to make sure God's creations fail, thus we have "bad" people.

That's all I'm gonna say. I hate religious discussions on online forums.

Jumpin said: Andrespetmonkey said:   1. In that Carl Sagen quote you forgot to to highlight the "by some definitions" part. Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no gods, I and most other people don't define it that way. I am an agnostic atheist meaning I don't think there is a god, but I don't know. It just seems unlikely to me. 2. And to the part that I highlighted. It's incredibly easy to know why the idea of gods has arisen. Because people didn't know what caused certain things to happen, they couldn't explain it, our brains are also programmed to see pattern, this is an evolutionary trait. We see "pattern" in the universe and feel the need to attribute it to something, and if we don't understand it, the easiest thing to attribute it to is a god or gods. 3. And I have no idea why you started wrting about morality. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But whatever, I'll give it a shot. The objective viewpoint I have to criticize Hitler, the Crusades and Jihad on is my knowledge of how a successful and happy society works and how the world is a better place when people aren't cunts to eachother. I also don't need an objective viewpoint anyway, since the basis of morality is subjective (empathy). 1. Then you and most people are incorrect about the definition as it is fairly clear. Atheism by definition is the belief that no Gods exist. If you do not assert that no Gods exist, you are not an atheist. Agnosticism is the belief that the knowledge of God is unknowable, so therefore that assertion is not made. Carl Sagan made the implication that Atheism was stupid, he himself was a firm agnostic and freethinker; and he certainly did not believe in a humanoid God. Perhaps you are actually an agnostic? I personally believe that agnosticism is probably the most rational philosophy at this time. 2. It's the simplest explanation, Occam's razor. I agree. Although if you feel that this means it is a false belief, then by definition that argument would commit the genetic fallacy; and would thus be invalid. 3. I believe I covered this in my last post.   Anyway, I still don't think you had any arguments against the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments. To briefly highlight them: The Cosmological Argument * Everything that had a beginning had a cause for its existence * The Universe had a beginning * Therefore - the Universe had a cause for its existence. Throughout much of modern history, it was believed by the atheist that the universe was eternal, and had no beginning. This, in the 20th century was refuted by evidence that shows that the universe is expanding - The Big Bang Theory.  The Big Bang Theory also states that time, matter,  and space began approximately 13.7 million years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Since that beginning required a cause of its existence, that cause would have to be beyond the material world, beyond, time, and beyond space. That means that the beginning had to be one of two things, an abstract object such as numbers - or God. Since we know that abstract objects such as numbers can't create, that leaves God as the possibility. * If the Universe (space, time and matter) has a cause for existence, it must be God. * Therefore God exists. Of course, all of this is dependent on the Big Bang Theory being true - currently it is widely accepted by nearly all of the scientific community to be accurate. Other philosophical theories (such as a multiverse, or the crunch) do not have any scientific evidence for them, and the "Big Crunch" has much evidence against it. This also just pushes the beginning back a step, and does not disprove the Cosmological argument.   The Teleological Argument * The Fine Tuning of the Big Bang for the existence of matter and the possibility of life must be due to either: Chance, Law, or Design. * The probabaility of chance is so small that it is absurd to argue that it is by chance. * The laws of physics are not dependent of the laws of nature, therefore it is not by law. * Therefore the Universe was created by Design Throughout much of modern history, it was often just assumed that the Universe ended up in its current state by chance. Since the 1980's, scientists have been stunned to discover that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine tuned so that the universe can exist the way it currently does; and that is, allowing for life permitting planets to emerge. When the laws of nature are divided into mathematical terms, we find constants - wuch as the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Secondly, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as intitial conditions on which the laws of nature operate (the amount of entropy, or the balance between matter and anti-matter). All of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinary range which allow for a life permitting universe that even if they were moved by a hair, the universe would not be able to have planets such as earth - it would probably not allow for material beyond helium. String theory predicts that there are about 10 to the 500th power possibilities for a matter and life permitting Universe, - the odds are so incomprehensible that it is not by chance.    The Ontological Argument * It is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists - we call this God. * If it is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists, then it is possible that it exists in a conceivable universe. * If that possibility exists in some universes, then it can exist in all conceivable universes. * If the greatest being can exist in every conceivable universe, then it exists in the actual universe. * Therefore the greatest being exists in the actual universe. * Therefore the greatest being exists * Therefore God Exists. There's not really a question of the points 2 through 7, they're logically sound. The first premise is potentially fallable, but I have not seen a good argument against it. Is God's existence possible? The preceding Cosmological and Teleological arguments strongly suggest that Gods existence is highly possible. Therefore given the logical progression of the argument from premise one, God exists. As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist. However, it IS rational to conclude that human knowledge has not advanced far enough that our sciences are accurate - and again, this does not support atheism in the slightest, but it does support agnosticism. What are the arguments of atheism? I often see a lot of bigoted comments towards religions as "support" for atheism; but nothing really solid in the form of a well supported and logically sound argument. Agnosticism and theism are the two rational philosophies. Atheism takes a huge leap of faith.

Ok I'll argue against these things.

The cosmological argument assumes causality (based on our experience that everything is caused by something else). However our experience (and causality) are governed by the universe - the same rules cannot necessarily be applied to the universe. 

The teleological argument, that physical laws are perfect for life, runs into the fact that if physical laws were not perfect for life then we would not be able to observe them. It is quite likely that there are other universes which are not perfect for life and that will never be observed. Only the universes suited for life will ever have observed physical laws.

Your version of the Ontological argument seems to be lacking at the point at which there is a crossover from the possibility of god existing to the necessity. In any case I dislike the ontological argument in general because as far as I can see it essentially boils down to "If we define God as existing then God exists".

 

Also in terms of atheism, a disbelief in something for which there is no physical evidence is not irrational. There isn't evidence for atheism anymore than there is evidence for not believing in unicorns - all there is is a lack of evidence to the contrary.

 

Also for a good page about the ontological argument (including the arguments against it):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/

Jumpin said: Andrespetmonkey said:   1. In that Carl Sagen quote you forgot to to highlight the "by some definitions" part. Atheism isn't the assertion that there is no gods, I and most other people don't define it that way. I am an agnostic atheist meaning I don't think there is a god, but I don't know. It just seems unlikely to me. 2. And to the part that I highlighted. It's incredibly easy to know why the idea of gods has arisen. Because people didn't know what caused certain things to happen, they couldn't explain it, our brains are also programmed to see pattern, this is an evolutionary trait. We see "pattern" in the universe and feel the need to attribute it to something, and if we don't understand it, the easiest thing to attribute it to is a god or gods. 3. And I have no idea why you started wrting about morality. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. But whatever, I'll give it a shot. The objective viewpoint I have to criticize Hitler, the Crusades and Jihad on is my knowledge of how a successful and happy society works and how the world is a better place when people aren't cunts to eachother. I also don't need an objective viewpoint anyway, since the basis of morality is subjective (empathy). 1. Then you and most people are incorrect about the definition as it is fairly clear. Atheism by definition is the belief that no Gods exist. If you do not assert that no Gods exist, you are not an atheist. Agnosticism is the belief that the knowledge of God is unknowable, so therefore that assertion is not made. Carl Sagan made the implication that Atheism was stupid, he himself was a firm agnostic and freethinker; and he certainly did not believe in a humanoid God. Perhaps you are actually an agnostic? I personally believe that agnosticism is probably the most rational philosophy at this time. 2. It's the simplest explanation, Occam's razor. I agree. Although if you feel that this means it is a false belief, then by definition that argument would commit the genetic fallacy; and would thus be invalid. 3. I believe I covered this in my last post.   Anyway, I still don't think you had any arguments against the Cosmological, Teleological, and Ontological arguments. To briefly highlight them: The Cosmological Argument * Everything that had a beginning had a cause for its existence * The Universe had a beginning * Therefore - the Universe had a cause for its existence. Throughout much of modern history, it was believed by the atheist that the universe was eternal, and had no beginning. This, in the 20th century was refuted by evidence that shows that the universe is expanding - The Big Bang Theory.  The Big Bang Theory also states that time, matter,  and space began approximately 13.7 million years ago, and has been expanding ever since. Since that beginning required a cause of its existence, that cause would have to be beyond the material world, beyond, time, and beyond space. That means that the beginning had to be one of two things, an abstract object such as numbers - or God. Since we know that abstract objects such as numbers can't create, that leaves God as the possibility. * If the Universe (space, time and matter) has a cause for existence, it must be God. * Therefore God exists. Of course, all of this is dependent on the Big Bang Theory being true - currently it is widely accepted by nearly all of the scientific community to be accurate. Other philosophical theories (such as a multiverse, or the crunch) do not have any scientific evidence for them, and the "Big Crunch" has much evidence against it. This also just pushes the beginning back a step, and does not disprove the Cosmological argument.   The Teleological Argument * The Fine Tuning of the Big Bang for the existence of matter and the possibility of life must be due to either: Chance, Law, or Design. * The probabaility of chance is so small that it is absurd to argue that it is by chance. * The laws of physics are not dependent of the laws of nature, therefore it is not by law. * Therefore the Universe was created by Design Throughout much of modern history, it was often just assumed that the Universe ended up in its current state by chance. Since the 1980's, scientists have been stunned to discover that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine tuned so that the universe can exist the way it currently does; and that is, allowing for life permitting planets to emerge. When the laws of nature are divided into mathematical terms, we find constants - wuch as the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Secondly, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as intitial conditions on which the laws of nature operate (the amount of entropy, or the balance between matter and anti-matter). All of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinary range which allow for a life permitting universe that even if they were moved by a hair, the universe would not be able to have planets such as earth - it would probably not allow for material beyond helium. String theory predicts that there are about 10 to the 500th power possibilities for a matter and life permitting Universe, - the odds are so incomprehensible that it is not by chance.    The Ontological Argument * It is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists - we call this God. * If it is possible that the greatest being in the Universe exists, then it is possible that it exists in a conceivable universe. * If that possibility exists in some universes, then it can exist in all conceivable universes. * If the greatest being can exist in every conceivable universe, then it exists in the actual universe. * Therefore the greatest being exists in the actual universe. * Therefore the greatest being exists * Therefore God Exists. There's not really a question of the points 2 through 7, they're logically sound. The first premise is potentially fallable, but I have not seen a good argument against it. Is God's existence possible? The preceding Cosmological and Teleological arguments strongly suggest that Gods existence is highly possible. Therefore given the logical progression of the argument from premise one, God exists. As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist. However, it IS rational to conclude that human knowledge has not advanced far enough that our sciences are accurate - and again, this does not support atheism in the slightest, but it does support agnosticism. What are the arguments of atheism? I often see a lot of bigoted comments towards religions as "support" for atheism; but nothing really solid in the form of a well supported and logically sound argument. Agnosticism and theism are the two rational philosophies. Atheism takes a huge leap of faith.

I'm not even gonna start to argue with you on those claims. A lot of them are just plain wrong. Especially the "fine tuning of the universe" argument.  And I do not believe a god exists, but I'm not certain, I'm still an atheist. An agnostic atheist. 

As conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that God exists. In light of what we know about the universe (scientifically speaking), it is irrational to conclude that God doesn't exist

There are an infinite possible number of interpretations of the idea of "god" and even of religion. Over a thousand different denominations of Christianity alone, all with their different beliefs on who or what god is. Surely it would be impossible to rule them all out. However if we zero in and examine a theistic claim about a specific god's nature or character, we can draw certain conclusions based on what we've learned about the world through the systematic observations and testing of reality known as science. Despite the theistic assertions that god cannot be caged by science, these specific claims made by the theist can be assessed. As our understanding of the world has increased through science, the gaps that god is able to inhabit have gotten smaller and smaller. With every additional piece of information we learn about the world, the more the constraints tighten on what a god could have or can do. This is perhaps best stated inStephen Hawking's a brief history of time.

Stephen Hawking in A brief history of time c.1988

With our current understanding of our place in the world through biology and astrophysics, we are able to make assessments about certain aspects or claims of god. We have mountains of empirical evidence that life is a result of evolution, not specific intentional creation by an omnipotent being as depicted in Genesis. We have mathematical evidence that Noah's ark could not have stayed afloat during a rainstorm of such capacity that earth's highest peaks were submerged. We have historical evidence that the Israelites were never enslaved by the Egyptians as depicted in Exodus. As it currently stands, our understanding of the universe places the necessity and likelihood of a god or gods to be on about the same footing as that of the tooth fairy.

Even if there are several arguments for the existence of god, we have to understand that these do not entail a belief beyond what is argued for. For example, the Cosmological Argument may postulate the need for a cause, which can be called "god." However we must not assume that it is in any way an argument for the Christian god, a god who answers prayers and counts the number of hair on ones head. In fact most of their arguments only strengthen the Deistic view. Christian and Muslim apologists are good defenders of Diesm but cannot aptly justify the specifics of their beliefs.

Many argue not for the existence of the entity known as "God," but rather for the "God-Shaped Hole" humans are said to possess. The God-Shaped Hole or "God part of the Brain" is a non-clinical Psychological term used to define a cluster of neurons that develop supernatural or otherworldly experiences, suggesting ultimately that humans are mistakenly wired into a belief in God.

Any argument from the side of the Christians must be first verified by themselves in a call for proof. The Bible itself has many determining statements by which we can see that evidence and signs are essential to belief. How can one lay a claim to faith with out the slightest shard of evidence.

Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.

• The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Jewish Tanakh, theChristian Bible, the Muslim Qur'an, Hindu Vedas, the Book of Mormon or the Baha'i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts. To be effective this argument requires the other side to hold that its scriptural record is inerrant, or at least to assert that a proper understanding of scripture gives rise to knowledge of God's existence.
• The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.
• The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.
• The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.
• The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.
• The argument from parsimony (using Occam's razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religionand belief in gods,^[36] the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.
• The analogy of Russell's teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist.