Haha that generally doesn't work out too well.  Appeals to reason aren't very effective on unreasonable people.

"but it's an uphill battle to bring people to the realization that there is no God"

Im sure the believers feel exactly the same way regarding the opposing argument.

The problem lies in the fact that neither side has yet been able to produce unrefutable evidence in support of either...

So who is right? Fucked if I know, but I know what I believe at this point in my life,and that brings my a degree of comfort.

Debate is always healthy,but to try to impose your will and beliefs onto others,either way,is where we as a species have always gone wrong.

I like to nicely explain that if we can call gravity a theory we can damb well call god a theory too.

other than that every one has the right to belive what they want in my eyes.

That's mixing up two different definitions of the word "theory," though.

"Theory" in science doesn't mean some wild guess at what's going on, it has to meet very specific criteria.  A scientific theory has to make specific predictions about things that can be observed so that the theory can be determined false if the observed outcome doesn't match the one predicted by the theory.  Whether a god exists or not is irrelevant to science because there's no way to accurately test it.

Then people look at things like relativity and string theory and think, "Well if all these complicated things can exist, then why can't God?"  Again, a god CAN exist, but it is several orders of magnitude more unlikely than all of these other things, and the discovery of all of these things actually makes a god's existence even more unlikely because it increases the amount of complexity the god would have to have in order to build all of this and provides more likely explanations.  The most important aspect of something like relativity is that it is testable:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity.  In fact, there is actually still debate as to whether or not string theory can be called a theory yet since it is unclear what testable implications it has:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Is_string_theory_predictive.3F.

Again, I'm not arguing that there is no god, or that we're not all plugged into the matrix, or that I'm not just hallucinating that all of you exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat).  I'm just arguing that it's not anything that's reasonably worth worrying about.  It doesn't change anything, because even if there is a god, maybe it's some Roman god and you're still going to hell, or a completely malicious god.  It's unknowable, it's unchangeable, there's no reason to shape your life around it.

Religion wouldn't be a problem if it weren't so damaging.  People waste precious moments of their lives in devotion and avoiding doing things they really want to do for unreasonable fear of punishment.  Wars are started, lives are lost.  Of course there will always be other unreasonable dogmas that lead to these same results, but the further removed we can become from all of them, the better off I believe we will ultimately be.</pulpit>

"Again, I'm not arguing that there is no god, or that we're not all plugged into the matrix, or that I'm not just hallucinating that all of you exist"

Lol~ Ive often believed all three of these are happening to me



"'m just arguing that it's not anything that's reasonably worth worrying about.  It doesn't change anything, because even if there is a god, maybe it's some Roman god and you're still going to hell, or a completely malicious god.  It's unknowable, it's unchangeable, there's no reason to shape your life around it."

Agreed,but that isnt the original question or argument.

People will and always have had a need to believe there is some greater power>essentially that coupled with our inbuilt natural curiosity is what has driven us to evolve at the rate we have.It is what science is bourne of.
Left only in the hands of Darwin,we`d would still be in caves.
It gives us the ability to quantify that which we do not understand yet know exists>that is what theory is bourne of.It exists to give us a sense of being within the great cosmos,ether,universes whatever.
For the lay-man or lazy-man,it is far easier to think of god as being a bearded old man or something else we can relate to.


"Religion wouldn't be a problem if it weren't so damaging.  People waste precious moments of their lives in devotion and avoiding doing things they really want to do for unreasonable fear of punishment.  Wars are started, lives are lost.  Of course there will always be other unreasonable dogmas that lead to these same results, but the further removed we can become from all of them, the better off I believe we will ultimately be"


And then what do we do?
I feel this is a matter of personal inerpretation of conventional societies(religions),and the nasty face of mass indoctrination. Unfortunately,like with so many other things in this world,a good percentage of sheeple are lazy and easily lead.We fail to want to examine anything further than what we are told to believe, or to try and accept that reality must only be that, which the human brain can comprehend at any point in space/time.. (Does that make any sense?)

I do feel however,that for many more in this world "God" has far greater value and meaning than obeying tenets of a certain church or scripture,through literal interpretation/comprehension of fables and ghost stories.

I agree that religion can seem to have ia lot to answer for,but take a look at the % of the globes population who take part in such practice, and then ask whether these evils are simply a manifestation of something inherently Human,or even animal(I mean shit,we all do it) and as such,is "religion" the cause or is human behaviour i.e science accountable?

Anyway to say god does or doesnt exist isnt the same thing as saying conventional religion is right or wrong.

Ill shut up know.
Friday night,Im off to touch god...

I think we agree to a large extent but aren't communicating it well.  If you're using "god" to just refer to the general processes of the universe, then yeah, we're definitely a part of something much much greater than we'll ever fully understand.

God as a conscious creator and judge, not so much.  It's an unnecessary complication.

     You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Joe Pesci. Two reasons; first of all, I think he's a good actor. Okay. To me, that counts. Second; he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. Doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with. For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog. Joe Pesci straightened that cock-sucker out with one visit.

     I noticed that of all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers that I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50 percent rate. Half the time I get what I want. Half the time I don't. Same as God 50-50. Same as the four leaf clover, the horse shoe, the rabbit's foot, and the wishing well. Same as the mojo man. Same as the voodoo lady who tells your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles. It's all the same; 50-50. So just pick your superstitions, sit back, make a wish and enjoy yourself.

They'll drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience....

I think God is used to enforce morals and values. Those are very important and help mold our "dogmatic society". Now of course if you can realize these without the help of He who is I am then you are good to go.

<God a proper noun, bro, wheres the capitalization?   >

I would also like to cite Meditations on First Philosophy. Surprised no one caught it because its linked to a brain in a vat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

Argument 1

   1. Something cannot come from nothing.
   2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the idea has objective reality.
   3. I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality.
   4. I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect being could cause such an idea.
   5. So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the source of my idea of God).
   6. An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being.
   7. So God is benevolent...
   8. So God would not deceive me and would not permit me to error without giving me a way to correct my errors.

Argument 2

   1. I exist.
   2. My existence must have a cause.
   3. The cause must be either:

        a) myself
        b) my always having existed
        c) my parents
        d) something less perfect than God
        e) God

    4. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
    5. Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I need to be continually sustained by another.
    6. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
    7. Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated from a non-perfect being.
    8. Therefore, e. God exists.

Of course what most people ignore are all of the assumptions made in those "proofs."

They always come back to the central idea that if you can think of something, it must exist in order for you to conceptualize it, which is ridiculous.  Perfection, ultimate goodness.  Dawkins decided since smell is relative there must also be a "pre-eminently peerless stinker" called God.     I can think up talking bananas and moon creatures and all sorts of things without them being true.

You can just as easily go the other way.  What is perfection?  Can anyone really define it?  If it's undefinable, then how can it and therefore a God who is the embodiment of perfection exist?  Of course that argument is just as flawed.

The ontological arguments are inherently flawed because you can't think things into or out of existence.

Can you convince the pantheist that the universe doesn't exist?