Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?

I think we're talking about different things here. There's definitely a vocal group of people that advocates a certain brand of Atheism, but they don't define the belief category any more than Christians define Theism. Its pretty easy to just call them Atheists and be done with it, but I think that's needlessly confusing. Atheism, as a whole, includes many different people with many different belief sets; including plenty of non-materialists who believe in souls and an afterlife (I'm thinking of members of the New Age movement). Now, I'm not sure I can suggest a better term for the guys you're discussing (well, besides the obvious list of technical qualifiers), but I think its worthwhile to at least recall that you really are talking about a subset of a very diverse group.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF

How do you reconcile that with the many people who find the opposite belief beneficial to their lives?

SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.

Mwahahahahaha!

Self satisfied much?

Apparently he didn't notice that even the mighty Atheists failed to surpass a 9th grade writing level.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Here's a question: must something exist, or even be possible, for it to be useful? I'm no mathematician, but my understanding is that they often use numbers that cannot actually exist to derive answers to practical questions. Perhaps the concept of God is equivalent to these in some way?

I think you are correct. Unfortunately the practical use for god is mainly to offer some justification for inciting hatred and violence towards any group of people who you disapprove of. Currently it is used to incite hatred towards gays, but at other times in history many groups of people have fallen victim to it.

The argument that religion helps people and doesn't hurt anyone is such a disdainful bastardization of the truth that I feel a stabbing pain behind my eyes whenever I read it. Being delusional is not a healthy coping strategy. And religion is far from harmless, it's a dangerous weapon used to control what people think and believe by saying ideas come from "a higher power" rather than just made up by people with an agenda.

People need to be taught how to think, not what to think. Otherwise they can be made to think anything and that is dangerous.

God says: thou shalt not kill.

I don't believe in god, but I believe killing is wrong because I can rationalize it out for myself. I don't want to be killed, I don't want to live in a world where people are killed all the time. I've seen the damage and heartbreak that killing can do... I am firmly against killing.

But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'

God says: fly a passenger plane full of innocent people into a sky scraper and kill the infidels!

I don't believe in god, and I've already reasoned out that killing is wrong. So I'm not going to do this.

But for a religious person their only moral beacon seems to be what god says... we all know how dangerous and stupid this can turn out to be.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.

Mwahahahahaha!

Self satisfied much?

I'm almost certain I could support that claim with hard facts and evidence. But then religious people aren't interested in little things like evidence and facts or 'the truth' now are they?

SmackCakes wrote:
But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'

Perhaps you mean 'Christian' people, and not 'religious' people.

Assuming that's the case, the rule as formulated in the Bible isn't really a prohibition against killing, its a prohibition against murder; basically unjustifiable killing.

SmackCakes wrote:
God says: fly a passenger plane full of innocent people into a sky scraper and kill the infidels!

I don't believe in god, and I've already reasoned out that killing is wrong. So I'm not going to do this.

But for a religious person their only moral beacon seems to be what god says... we all know how dangerous and stupid this can turn out to be.

I'm fairly certain that you're not going to find a holy text that tells people to do what you describe.

SmackCakes wrote:But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'

You're assuming religion requires a dogmatic acceptance of statements that have come from religious authority. While this can happen, it is not universal within faith, nor is only religion prone to such.

Your argument about killing is basically nonsense, as well. You posit that if a person accepts morality through authority alone, they are vulnerable if an authority tells them to do something bad. You conclude that a person is much less likely to do something bad if , but you're ignoring the idea that if a person can reason himself into believing a good thing, he can just as easily reason himself into believing a bad thing.

The whole thing is really nonsense because the authority/reason thing just doesn't describe how people actually form their morals. Both authority (religious and non-religious), and reason, and life experience all combine to form our moral views.

I'm almost certain I could support that claim with hard facts and evidence. But then religious people aren't interested in little things like evidence and facts or 'the truth' now are they?

I'm not a religious guy, but I've got a pretty healthy suspicion of any world view that places a person and those like him in an elite few.

Now, studies show pretty consistantly that atheists tend to perform better in studies, but that doesn't mean any individual atheist is actually all that much more likely to be intelligent. For one, it is typically a few specific faiths that drag down the others (in the Pew survey that started this the Latino Catholics tanked the scores).

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well the comment was specifically directed at galbraithe, who I am sure does believe that atheism is more rational than theism.

I don't think atheism is more rational, because there are many ways to arrive at an atheist conclusion. Buddhism teaches that all of existence is an illusion, including the perception of God. That's a very different sort of atheism than the atheist who arrives at atheism via rational materialism.

I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:almost everyone on dakka believes there's a south pole, but how many people have been there? Know someone who has? We take the existance of such a place for granted on no better authority than someone else told us that such a place exists. If thats good enough for the south pole why not for God? So to me its obvious that positive proof is not the only way that a reasonable person gets his information about the world. ie you dont have to see it yourself. Thats why I think its a little silly for (some) atheists to say "I've never seen God theres no proof therefore he doesnt exist."

Are you for real?

I have never been to the south pole. I do believe it exists. I believe it exists because numerous people have claimed to have gone there, they have taken photographs of it, including from space, and -- perhaps most importantly -- because the south pole is necessary. You can't have a globe spinning on an axis without having a south pole. The need for a south pole is fairly obvious.

It's possible that the south pole doesn't exist, but its existence is falsifiable -- you can go there an check if you really need to -- so if it is a hoax, then it's a really impressive hoax, involving millions of people going back centuries. Because if there is no south pole, then the world isn't round and spinning on an axis. And yet we've all been successfully deluded into thinking it does.

You got any photographs of God? A set of GPS coordinates I can travel to where I will find God? No? Then stop making such ridiculous comparisons. Believing in the south pole is nothing at all like believing in God.

Gailbraithe wrote:I don't think atheism is more rational, because there are many ways to arrive at an atheist conclusion. Buddhism teaches that all of existence is an illusion, including the perception of God. That's a very different sort of atheism than the atheist who arrives at atheism via rational materialism.

I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.

No, because while fantastical a unicorn would still exist in the natural world. God, by the nature of being God, is supernatural - beyond the natural world. The requirement that a supernatural being would leave material evidence of his existance in the material world is nonsensical.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.

I don't think there is just as much evidence to beleive in unicorns as there is in God. I don't know how many eyewitness accounts or factual written records of unicorns exist. I'm not saying that evidence for God is reliable, but it's ludicrous to suggest that the evidence simply doesn't exist.

It's possible that the south pole doesn't exist, but its existence is falsifiable -- you can go there an check if you really need to -- so if it is a hoax, then it's a really impressive hoax, involving millions of people going back centuries. Because if there is no south pole, then the world isn't round and spinning on an axis. And yet we've all been successfully deluded into thinking it does.

Liektehbibel?

You got any photographs of God?

Yes we do!

Comparing God to Unicorns, then saying that it's stupid to use the South Pole as an example does not reflect well on you.

sebster wrote:No, because while fantastical a unicorn would still exist in the natural world. God, by the nature of being God, is supernatural - beyond the natural world. The requirement that a supernatural being would leave material evidence of his existance in the material world is nonsensical.

Unicorns are supernatural. In their natural state they are invisible, intangible and fart rainbows that make all good things happen.



Plus, believing in them makes little girls happy, so following AF's argument, they are real.

They are also the preferred mount of messiahs. Check the codex.

Gailbraithe wrote:Unicorns are supernatural. In their natural state they are invisible, intangible and fart rainbows that make all good things happen.

Their claimed tendency to fart rainbows gives them a presence in the material world, so we can test for that presence or not. No such test is possible for God.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.

It would be if you dismiss them all because they're creatures of superstition, and also classify God as a creature of superstition. However, if you don't classify God as a creature of superstition, or if you dismiss the other creatures of superstition for reasons that are not related to their superstitious nature, then its not irrational to refuse to dismiss God.

sebster wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:Unicorns are supernatural. In their natural state they are invisible, intangible and fart rainbows that make all good things happen.

Their claimed tendency to fart rainbows gives them a presence in the material world, so we can test for that presence or not. No such test is possible for God.

No, they are supernatural rainbows, and they manifest as miracles. So they are, sadly, every bit as untestable as the miracles God does or does not work in the world, depending on how silly the theist you are talking to is.

By the way, did you know that God's name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
I do think its irrational to dismiss unicorns, faeries, daemons, loa, ghosts, foo dragons, and all other creatures of superstition and not apply the same logic to god. In other words, if god then unicorns. Since I feel silly believing in unicorns, I don't believe in god.

It would be if you dismiss them all because they're creatures of superstition, and also classify God as a creature of superstition. However, if you don't classify God as a creature of superstition, or if you dismiss the other creatures of superstition for reasons that are not related to their superstitious nature, then its not irrational to refuse to dismiss God.

God certainly appears to be a creature of superstition. At least the God of the bible, the one that leaves burning footprints, talks through flaming bushes, rain mana from the heavens, sends angels to visit people, lays cities to waste, parts seas, etc.

I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.

sebster wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:But for a religious person the only reason not to kill seems to be "because god said so". However religious people always seem to find the whole not killing rule 'negotiable'

You're assuming religion requires a dogmatic acceptance of statements that have come from religious authority. While this can happen, it is not universal within faith, nor is only religion prone to such.

Yes I am assuming that. As I had Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam) in mind when I wrote it.

I'm almost certain I could support that claim with hard facts and evidence. But then religious people aren't interested in little things like evidence and facts or 'the truth' now are they?

I'm not a religious guy, but I've got a pretty healthy suspicion of any world view that places a person and those like him in an elite few.

Now, studies show pretty consistantly that atheists tend to perform better in studies, but that doesn't mean any individual atheist is actually all that much more likely to be intelligent. For one, it is typically a few specific faiths that drag down the others (in the Pew survey that started this the Latino Catholics tanked the scores).

I don't think saying the atheists tend to be intelligent and well educated has to be interpreted as meaning they are all rocket scientists. Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion. I don't think atheists are intelligent because they are atheists. Rather I believe that atheism is a place people arrive to when they ask sensible questions and draw sensible conclusions. Thus anyone who gets there probably has quite good reasoning skills.

I think I also recall reading atheists are dramatically under represented in prison populations... And I'm sure it is no coincidence that poverty, lack of education, and ending up in prison are all somehow linked.

burning_phoneix wrote:9/10

If Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Then why do they call him Jesus of Nazerth?!

Yeah
I wondered that too. Bethlehem was an insane assylum in London so that makes Jesus a Cockney.
(Assuming Bedlam was within the bells and all that stuff)

More probably that Bethlehem is a little town in an area known as Nazareth?

The thread has gone the way predicted by the old prophets.
Time to move on
Ta-ta cockers!* have fun

*that is not rude btw
as our northern chums will testify

I like having imaginary friends who I can neither prove are real or prove are imaginary. It lets me justify my behavior, and I'm pretty sure Nyarlathotep is happy when I stick gerbils in places they don't belong in his name, too. If religious 'knowledge' is reduced to knowing the 'facts' about the bible, then hey I want a literacy test about what happened on page 7 of the cat-in-the-hat too.

Why are the only documented miracles and supernatural happenings in the name of God just coincidentally happened in a time when people also thought the earth was flat, or an eclipse was a wolf swallowing the sun? (actually a wolf did swallow the sun, I was there... prove me wrong otherwise I am right)

Gailbraithe wrote:
God certainly appears to be a creature of superstition. At least the God of the bible, the one that leaves burning footprints, talks through flaming bushes, rain mana from the heavens, sends angels to visit people, lays cities to waste, parts seas, etc.

Sure, but you're an atheist, which means that you're pretty likely to classify any belief in God as superstitious. Superstition isn't the same thing as immaterial or supernatural, its basically a catch-all category for things that the classifier believes to be credulous. My point is that, if you, for whatever reason, don't place your particular brand of God (or God as a general idea) into that category, then refusing to reject God on the basis that someone else does isn't irrational. In fact, it would be irrational to reject God on the basis that someone else believes it is a superstitious idea if you disagreed with that person's assessment.

Now, you can probably make a good case for why the Biblical God is predicated on superstition, but it isn't going to be nearly as strong as the one for, say, placing dream-catchers in that category. After all, we can test the effect of dream-catchers on people tomorrow if we want to, and we'll likely find that there isn't one. We can't test the veracity of miraculous events that supposedly occurred a couple thousand years ago.

Gailbraithe wrote:
I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.

That type of God have a lot of affect on the world anyway. Its basically just a way for people to impart a personalized sort of order on the Universe.

dogma wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:
God certainly appears to be a creature of superstition. At least the God of the bible, the one that leaves burning footprints, talks through flaming bushes, rain mana from the heavens, sends angels to visit people, lays cities to waste, parts seas, etc.

Sure, but you're an atheist, which means that you're pretty likely to classify any belief in God as superstitious. Superstition isn't the same thing as immaterial or supernatural, its basically a catch-all category for things that the classifier believes to be credulous. My point is that, if you, for whatever reason, don't place your particular brand of God (or God as a general idea) into that category, then refusing to reject God on the basis that someone else does isn't irrational. In fact, it would be irrational to reject God on the basis that someone else believes it is a superstitious idea if you disagreed with that person's assessment.

I don't know if that is fair, why should one thing that there is no reliable evidence for... be any more probable than another thing that there is no reliable evidence for?

SmackCakes wrote:
Yes I am assuming that. As I had Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam) in mind when I wrote it.

Islam doesn't require the dogmatic acceptance of pronouncements from religious authorities. Its actually quite libertarian in the sense that there is no real hierarchy built into it. Protestant Christianity basically exists because its adherents don't accept that they must accept dogma in the course of their worship. Judaism, the most dogmatically rigid when it comes to authority, is defined by the fact that its adherents tend towards high levels of education and earning.

SmackCakes wrote:Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion.

People that come to a Theist conclusion couldn't possibly have looked at the facts and come to their own conclusion?

dogma wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion.

People that come to a Theist conclusion couldn't possibly have looked at the facts and come to their own conclusion?

The facts don't support Theism.

SmackCakes wrote:
I don't know if that is fair, why should one thing that there is no reliable evidence for... be any more probable than another thing that there is no reliable evidence for?

There's a difference between the absence of evidence, and the evidence of absence. Take my example of the dream-catcher. We have, or could produce, reliable evidence that it doesn't work. Its much more difficult, arguably impossible, to produce reliable evidence for the absence of God.

But in any case, its not a matter of probability. I'm not claiming that God is any more probably than unicorns, fairies, or leprechauns. I'm simply saying that it is possible to classify God as something that isn't superstitious, and therefore an argument that posits the rejection of superstitious things should be grounds for the rejection of God does not have as much force as it first seems to.

For example, many Christians will cite their personal relationship with God as evidence of his existence. Since we can't, yet, get inside their heads and see what's going on we can't really confirm or deny what they're saying. They may indeed have a sort of empirical evidence to which non-believers are, for some reason, not privy to. After all, Sam Harris has published research regarding the fact that religious thought and experience appears to activate a different part of the brain than ostensibly similar mental occurrences. Now, he's unlikely to suppose that this is evidence of God (it is Sam Harris, after all), but it does support the idea that there is something inherently different about religious experience that we cannot fully explain as of yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SmackCakes wrote:
The facts don't support Theism.

They don't support strong atheism, what I assume is your position, either.

One of the first things you learn studying philosophy is that there are multiple means on interpreting any non-testable set of facts. Since there are no testable facts regarding the existence of God, the whole question comes down to the mixture of personal utility and desire that underpins most beliefs. At least to the extent that you consider the question a relevant one. Personally, I think whether or not we believe in God has no bearing on his/her/its actual existence.

SmackCakes wrote:Yes I am assuming that. As I had Judeo-Christian religions (including Islam) in mind when I wrote it.

But it isn't true of all followers of Judeo-Christian faiths.

I don't think saying the atheists tend to be intelligent and well educated has to be interpreted as meaning they are all rocket scientists. Just people who are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to consider the facts for themselves and draw their own conclusion. I don't think atheists are intelligent because they are atheists. Rather I believe that atheism is a place people arrive to when they ask sensible questions and draw sensible conclusions. Thus anyone who gets there probably has quite good reasoning skills.

No, it really doesn't. It's just a correlation, people from certain backgrounds (affluent, well educated) have a tendency to be atheist and tend to do well in tests. It is a mistake to assume that they are atheist because of a greater level of reasoning.

Afterall, when society begins to struggle in times of war or recession religion increases - this isn't because formerly smart people are losing their reasoning capacity, it's because people who aren't comfortable are more likely to turn to God. Wealthier, more affluent people tend to do be more comfortable and therefore less in need of God, and also able to do better in tests.

There is correlation, but causation is a whole other thing. Also, the difference in scores is three fifths of fuckall.

I think I also recall reading atheists are dramatically under represented in prison populations... And I'm sure it is no coincidence that poverty, lack of education, and ending up in prison are all somehow linked.

Yes, they are. People who's lives a crap have more of a reason to believe in God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gailbraithe wrote:No, they are supernatural rainbows, and they manifest as miracles. So they are, sadly, every bit as untestable as the miracles God does or does not work in the world, depending on how silly the theist you are talking to is.

An invisible, intangible thing that does nothing that can be reasonably tested for... sure it is just as rational to believe or disbelieve.

I know some people define God as this indeterminate thing of an indeterminate nature with indeterminate goals and desires that must be taken entirely on faith, but that's so fething vague I can't say it exists or not, because I'll be damned if I can wrap my mind around something that's impossible to wrap my mind around. So I dismiss it as headache inducing word games.

If you reject things because they're tricky to wrap your head around then you must really hate high level physics.

Yes, they are. People who's lives a crap have more of a reason to believe in God.

Which I find to be the saddest thing about god believers. In times of need they turn to the one thing that is almost certain to not make the slightest bit of difference to their situation.

Maybe if they let go of god they might actually be able to start facing up to their problems like a grown up. Rather than counting on some big bearded parent in the sky to come bail them out.

SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.

Comments like this step over the line with regards to what is tolerable "debate" on the forum. If you are incapable of arguing your case without making sweeping and rude statements like this, then don't "contribute" to the thread.

You may now return to yelling your predetermined and unchangeable positions at each other, until we, inevitably, lock the thread as it spirals out of control as previous grudges are brought up and old scores settled. HIP HIP HOORAY FOR INTERNET 111

Love and kisses, the fascist Dakka Moderation team.

reds8n wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.

Comments like this step over the line with regards to what is tolerable "debate" on the forum. If you are incapable of arguing your case without making sweeping and rude statements like this, then don't "contribute" to the thread.

How very dare you (no really!). If I said mysticism was a lie or even democracy is a lie, you wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. But just because I say some old bronze age texts and superstitions which endlessly contradict themselves and are contradicted also by modern science, regarding the nature of the earth and planets, the origin of animals, the 3 billion missing yeas of history... Suddenly I'm not entitled to call it what it is?

It is a lie, a poorly formulated one. A fair comment.

And on that note, I shall bow out of this thread.

No I wouldn't.

And if you'd merely said "I think religion is a lie" that would be fine as well.

What does cross over the line is the implied criticism that all people who aren't atheists are unintelligent and uneducated and therefore inferior in some manner.

It's the difference between presenting your case or view in a polite and intelligent manner, which might encourage some debate, and yelling and calling people who don't agree with you names.

If you genuinely cannot see the difference there then it is best you bow out indeed.

SmackCakes wrote:
Maybe if they let go of god they might actually be able to start facing up to their problems like a grown up. Rather than counting on some big bearded parent in the sky to come bail them out.

That's almost never how faith actually works. Religious people tend to lean on their faith in God to get them through periods in which their actions aren't seeing strong results, despite being the only available, or seemingly best, course. Sometimes their wrong, of course, but that's true of any faith driven position. Even something like the faith in one's abilities that guides people through difficult tasks, like writing dissertations, or raising a child.

SmackCakes wrote:

Yes, they are. People who's lives a crap have more of a reason to believe in God.

Which I find to be the saddest thing about god believers. In times of need they turn to the one thing that is almost certain to not make the slightest bit of difference to their situation.

Maybe if they let go of god they might actually be able to start facing up to their problems like a grown up. Rather than counting on some big bearded parent in the sky to come bail them out.

To be honest, poor fishermen and farmers in rural Africa probably work much harder than people in developed nations.

Here's an idea:

How about the people who who've had this argument a million times before bow out of the thread and just leave the newer people to argue amongst themselves as if the points raised haven't already been raised countless times on THIS VERY FORUM.

Long story short: You can't debate god INTO existence, nor can you debate he/she/it OUT of it.

Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you. If you believe that your belief is somehow automatically the truth, and that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, how are you any better than the religious fanatics you put down. Think about it.