there are penalties imposed implicitly and explicitly simply from living in civilisation no matter what, that doesn't go away even if you destroy all religion and i'd argue that it can get incredibly inhumane when atheism takes hold of a society, such as in the soviet union

its a perpetual problem of existing as a human being that's being framed by naive people as a problem stemming only from religion as opposed to simply coming as a result of humans coming together and forming groups and needing limitations to coexist peacefully

There is evidence, the Bible and the billions of people that believe that particular God exists. 

You don't have to go to church, give money or anything to believe God exists. 

Don't we need a moral code??  Whats wrong with a Christian one?  Who would you trust more to not harm you if you are all alone, unarmed in a dark alley?  The Christian guy, or a gangster?  Really no reason to trust or not trust either as you would be judging them before knowing them, but if you have to go by moral codes, I might lean slightly towards the Christian person lol.  Obviously there are bad apples regardless of your code, but this is just a basic example.  

There are people that succeed in exactly what you said regarding money.   Some are Christian, some have no religious affiliation, some have a similar crazy claim but most are a much simpler version of that.  When I give to my church however, I know what that money is going for.  I don't give the money to go to heaven or be in God's good graces, I give it to help keep the church running, and to help it with it's charities.

Anyways, I am not the most eloquent in explaining these sorts of things so I will leave it there.  Might not be examples that make sense to you, and you might attempt to find every single flaw or hole in what I am saying to make your point.  If you want to not believe in God, and prove relgion sucks, you will succeed, if you want to believe He is real, you will succeed.  Which one brings you the life you want??  That is up to you. 

I am bowing out of this forum, I have said my pieces.  I am not a very good debater, I just wanted to share my point of view.  Also, since this is a gaming website, GAME ON! 

That is an evasion though ... I'm not talking about penalties imposed by civilization (not sure what you are referring to here). I'm talking about the implicit claim in the quote that argues that it would be better to believe in God (specifically the Christian God; ignoring all the other gods that have been claimed to exist) in order to avoid the consequences of not believing in it. I'm arguing that you should not believe in anything without proof / evidence first. We can speculate about many things, but what we should certainly not do is rearrange our lives (and society as a whole) based on a metaphysical belief that has not one shred of evidence in support of it. 

I'd argue that the Soviet Union (and communist states in general) was merely a different variety of religion that places society (which does not exist, a society is just a large collection of individuals) as a super organism of sorts that people must obey and serve. 

A society can exist based on a rational world view centered on reason / evidence. I would recommend looking into the concept of anarcho-capitalism (as for a political theory) and rational egoism (for a moral world view) as examples of means of arranging society without a God or gods or god-like super states. Atheism is a very broad spectrum ... not all atheists are communists, some, like myself, are the exact opposite. 

The only thing thats infinite is human stupidity. When fanatics and atheist learn to respect each other ideologies, then the world will be a better place to live.Period.

The bible is nothing that antique political propaganda of fiction, lies and a little of truth and by no means must be considered as proof/ base for your own ideologies. Only blind fanatics are guided by blind proof.

If it may assume the existence of spiritual beings, then, yes, it is.

It doesn't challenge even the question about such things. 

Atheism is the position people have that simply don't believe in a god or gods. That's it. 

Someone who doesn't believe in Gods can still believe in ghosts or other stuff. Not that I think it's rational. 

That is an evasion though ... I'm not talking about penalties imposed by civilization (not sure what you are referring to here). I'm talking about the implicit claim in the quote that argues that it would be better to believe in God (specifically the Christian God; ignoring all the other gods that have been claimed to exist) in order to avoid the consequences of not believing in it. I'm arguing that you should not believe in anything without proof / evidence first. We can speculate about many things, but what we should certainly not do is rearrange our lives (and society as a whole) based on a metaphysical belief that has not one shred of evidence in support of it. 

I'd argue that the Soviet Union (and communist states in general) was merely a different variety of religion that places society (which does not exist, a society is just a large collection of individuals) as a super organism of sorts that people must obey and serve. 

A society can exist based on a rational world view centered on reason / evidence. I would recommend looking into the concept of anarcho-capitalism (as for a political theory) and rational egoism (for a moral world view) as examples of means of arranging society without a God or gods or god-like super states. Atheism is a very broad spectrum ... not all atheists are communists, some, like myself, are the exact opposite. 

Wouldn't you classify as an Agnost if you believe in ghosts and other stuff. Since those are inexplicably linked to heaven and hell and supernatural powers. Any who as you said an Atheist that believes in the supernatural is a very weird Atheist to begin with.

i was mostly talking about this

"There is a penalty imposed on us for "believing" this claim since we would have to radically adjust our lives / world view to conform to this (going to church, donating to churches/charities, following a moral code imposed by Christianity etc. etc.; it is a huge cost)."

"but what we should certainly not do is rearrange our lives (and society as a whole) based on a metaphysical belief that has not one shred of evidence in support of it. "

metaphysical belief is at the very core of civilisation and i mean that even separate from organised religion

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

 for example this idea is at the core of the us justice system and is supposed to provide everyone with equal rights and its obviously not a practical concept but a more metaphysical concept and there are loads of other examples like that, which give society its structure

That quote may reference a "creator" but the secular variation of it holds true as well. I would modify it to say that all men are born with the capacity for reason (which we can not exercise properly if we live under tyranny) which makes us equal in terms of rights. 

" I'm arguing that you should not believe in anything without proof / evidence first."

if people really behaved in accordance with this they'd be paralysed, there are so many things we take for granted during our everyday lives that are prone to change and we still move forwards anyway, because people generally act primarily not based on acquiring and assessing the facts of a situation but on what feels right to them subjectively

and that goes for everyone

I think we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here ... yes it is true that our capacity for reason is based on our senses which are imperfect, but that does not mean that the data that are senses provide is completely invalid. Look at how much has been accomplished with just our limited senses (computers / video games themselves are a testament to that). We should be striving to sharpen and improve our skills and senses (through reason / technology) which we already have ... we have microscopes, telescopes, and any number of instruments that provide advanced sensory data beyond what our limited biology normally allows us to find. Science does not require perfect knowledge / sensory data to function, we draw reasonable conclusions based on limited data. Sort of like when you are playing a card game like Hearthstone (you have some knowledge of your opponent's deck and you make reasonable conclusions based on this). 

Of course we make plenty of decisions based purely on subjective feelings and whims as well, but the fact is we all make countless decisions every single day based on rational conclusions drawn from the best estimates of reality we have which our senses provide (even if we never explicitly say"I'm using my reason based on evidence to draw this conclusion about X." Religious belief asks us to throw out our senses entirely and to believe in something extraordinary without any semblance of evidence or sensory data to support it, this is counter to our very nature as reasoning / thinking creatures.

"I'd argue that the Soviet Union (and communist states in general) was merely a different variety of religion that places society (which does not exist, a society is just a large collection of individuals) as a super organism of sorts that people must obey and serve. "

i'd agree that the same thought patterns that bring about religious thought are involved, but the point i'm making is that its a characteristic that is present in everyone, despite whatever position they claim to hold, whether they be atheist or catholic

"A society can exist based on a rational world view centered on reason / evidence."

first off i don't think so because of how inherently limited all people are and secondly "reason" and "evidence" are subjective and prone to change because we are limited

with regards to "evidence" there have been many cases of evidence appearing to give one conclusion only for further study with better equipment/methodology to disprove the prior conclusion

that doesn't mean that you don't try to act in accordance with evidence but you have to be careful and allow there to be room for further developments to update what you currently know

I would argue that "reason" and "evidence" are not subjective, that is the key difference. Since reason is our interpretation and use of sensory data or evidence which is drawn from reality, they are the only valid means we have of understanding the universe. While sensory data itself can be limited and can even give misleading conclusions, it is still the only real means we have of understanding the world. Without it, we are just firing blind; making all decisions by whim / instinct like animals. 

While it is a lot to ask for people to make a move towards a more rational society (like the ones I and others propose), we have numerous examples now of society at large making massive cultural / value shifts as well as overall shifts in knowledge. Even the least intelligent among us is still more intelligent than many of his most intelligent ancestors were; with greater knowledge of the world than they could ever have hoped to achieve thanks to modern technology. Society has made great shifts, from nomadic herders, to agricultural based, to industrial, to modern society all while making great social strides (abolition of slavery, a move from a theocracy to a more secular / rational zeitgeist, moving from monarchy to more limited representative government, etc.). It is certainly possible for us to develop and change, and that is what we will probably continue to do. This is, by far, the best time for us to be alive precisely because of the incredible advancements that have been made which were accomplished entirely through reason / evidence use. 

" I would recommend looking into the concept of anarcho-capitalism (as for a political theory) and rational egoism (for a moral world view) as examples of means of arranging society without a God or gods or god-like super states."

i might have before, but i'll be sure to look again

"not all atheists are communists, some, like myself, are the exact opposite. "

i know that i've been implying that i think that a lot, but i really don't, its just that i'm noticing what appears to be an explosion of communist/marxist ideology recently on the atheist side of the spectrum and its dangerous

Agree 100% with that, and can understand why you would think so. It is unfortunate that many prominent atheist philosophers happen to be either left leaning or radical Marxist types.