Believing in god is believing in magic tricks. Magic has always amused people so has religion. There is no god and there cannot be one. God has no place in living being's life. Science took over and no god is needed to explain biological, chemical and physical phenomenas in today's world. Unexplored and unexplained will be explored.

P.S. Atheism is not a religion, beleiving in nothing is not a beleif. 

Mr freedom
         You are telling me we ( human Race) only understand 4% of universe. Centurys ago, we only understood about lets say 3% of universe. Does that mean there were no universal forces like gravity or electromagnetic or any other forces. Probably not, apple always fell towards earth when it was thrown up no matter who threw ( Newton or Us). These things have been there, its just we or our intellectuality did not discovered them. 

What was before big bang? I wish we could go further back than big bang, but with physical and chemical phenomenas and our brains capacity, we can only trace time till big bang. Now, there might be something before big bang, but there has to be a start point. Lets say, you are what you are now, but if I ask you what you were before, you dont have answer because you were not who you are before that time period. Who were you before you were born? A sperm of some guy, where did that sperm came from?. Who was that guy, a son of some other guy, at end you need a start point and that start point for universe is considered big bang observing the present universe.

Human existence has theorized there was a creator. But nature has always been through a course and natural or universal laws of matter has guided us till 13 billion years from the start of time. 

If creator creates us, then who creates " Unknown creature" named god. Are we using him for an excuse to explain the unexplainable at the time or are we going to explore oneday and find the answer. The answer may never be known but it cannot be GOD. May be we are not built to figure chaos of universe but certenly can say Creator is not needed for whole universe to run. 

By the way, let the beleiver believe in what he belives, then why we fight for human rights. If a guy beleives pouring a hot water on lady to get her witch spirit out, do you think it would right to keep quite and let man pour the hot water to woman? You have to wake up one day and say this is whats going on ?, otherwise you will beleive in what has been feed to you or what others have explained to you. Can beleivers question how, when , why , where god came or is required?

8848m, they do believe in probability of highly advanced beings in existence, who could have coded our DNA, am not saying.. they're(top physicists) saying when we question reason of our own existence,  they also believe life of those could have started somewhere different but resonating with similar nature of ours(darwinism)..

life is mystical force in itself.

@alternate bro,
The kind of proof you want is for me to take out god from my pockets to show you which i cannot do. God is experienced
through faith not science. You refuse to have faith. God represents the unknown much like the 96% of the universe.
I am a man of science. The so called big bang experiment using the Hadron collider was impressive, what with hundreds
of scientists, a collider worth a couple of billions, particles MADE to collide. But i fail to understand how people like you
use this to deny the existence of god. The whole process was NOT unconscious, NOTrandom,NOT blind,NOT automatic.
The process was conscious, planned and designed. Life is much more than 500 bucks in your empty wallet, yet you deny
any concious design to life. Therein lies your double standards.
I am not asking you to prove my stand because my stand is self proven. You are the one saying 500 bucks got into your
wallet through an unconscious, randon, blind and automatic process. I am the one telling you someone put it there.
So why do i need to do the proving?.

@8848m bro,
The concept of God is of an eternal being that which is conscious. This concept closes the god of gaps for good.
We are not left with questions as answers for life. Unless you believe questions are the answer to life, then the only
alternative is to believe in God.

I think you are confusing religion with God. The concept of God stands apart from religion, religion only seeks to
understand God. That is why there are Agnostics, Deists, etc. You should join us, it is more reasonable than being
an Atheist. Atheism makes a human being unreasonable.

That 4% thingy is straight from Science, not me. Now you are hinting that 4% will eventually become 100%, look those
are assumptions, it could very well stay at 4%. It is same like me telling you scientists will see god in future. Let us talk
about what is real at present.     
 

@alternate bro,
morality is not evolution based, it is rather religion based. Through the return benefit system, you do not get morality but only selfishness. It is religion that teaches do unto others as you want others to do unto you. It is religion that teaches to pray for those who persecute you. You take away religion, you take away all these teachings and on hand you will only have the return benefit system. You are good to me therefore i am good to you.  

Freedom2012,

Here you go espousing your belief in fine points regarding morality. This is the point I wanted to derive home. As I had said before, I am not concerned about the presence of a higher being - I am more concerned about the set of principles a religion teaches, and the people who interpret it. I don’t need a tag to identify myself. I don’t need a beacon of light, which I don’t see, to serve me as a guiding post.

Do you think a newly born kid who has no idea of religion whatsoever lacks morality? Do you think all the people who don’t subscribe any religion or religion of your choice lack morality – and the implication that you are somehow better than them because they lack godliness? Either you don’t know what Morality is, or you don’t know what even a religion is, or both. Morality has no bearing to religion – none, but the religion tries to be a guiding principle of morality by establishing bunch of DOs and DON’Ts in its simplest form.

You may be opposed to religions other than yours just for the precise reason they are different than yours. Others may feel the same about your religion. By that token, you are inadvertently at loggerheads with them about the correct set of principles (religion) – which is justified by ongoing religious conflicts. Much of the conflict is not due to moral differences, it is due to difference in your holy book, although I acknowledge the differences in code of conduct- but that’s immaterial again (to me). Now, both of these holy books have codified morality as an objective code, but still have provided room to wiggle (interpretation). Needless to say these interpretations are subjective. Hence you have objectives that are subjective to interpretation of you and your clique; thus you remain at the direct line of fire only for sticking with countless ridiculous rules.

The whole is greater than sum total of its parts (gestaltism) , but if your foundation relies on antiquated beliefs that challenge reality, you have no other option than parlay (rather double-down) to your perceived morality by conveniently forgetting existence of pristine morality.

As Aristotle had divided the means of persuasion to ethos, pathos and logos, religions still focus on ethos by invoking the invisibility of omniscient omnipotent higher being. The rest two means are laden (Yes, laden) as a result of subterfuge that’s been delineated since time immemorial to manipulate people’s conduct of life (with added flavors of bestowing oneself with controlling powers).

You accept or reject a philosophy based upon its truthfulness. There is no philosophy that is outside the radar of criticism. But you cleverly push a ‘philosophy’ to a position (not necessarily higher or a better position) and give it a name of religion to coat it with invincibility and then invented your rituals. Now you have that crutch and you are used to walking with it although your legs are just fine.

You talk about walking with that crutch; I talk about walking. For once, throw that crutch and start walking.

Science is an answer to the physical, biological and chemical phenomena and can never be the answer to the life. Nobody knows 'God'. Religion is made by people. Religion does not even have any answer to the life or 'God' and there will not be any answer. Its only a belief. Different religion has different beliefs about 'God' and there has always been fight between unhumans about it. I am not a religious person. I think people made 'God' just to scare people to keep morality in people and religion supports it. I don't think it has been that success. 

" If I had to choose a Religion, Sun as the universal giver of life would be my God " Napoleon Bonaparte.

@alternate bro,
I agree morality is a broad term. Can you be good without religion?. Yes. But what was the origin of moral learned behaviour?. It is religion. You might recall your hindu upbringing and how that has shaped your morality to a certain extent. Also the other question remains, is being good enough?. Or do we have to rise above just being mere oridnary humans?. Donating, giving seat to elderly,adopting kids, blood donation, etc all appeal to a higher sense of morality . I dont see how evolution satisfies this search for morality. Great people like mother teresa, florence nightingale have been produced by religion.

Also how could an unconscious origin give rise to good and bad morality?. How could unconsciousness give rise to consciousness?. These are also valid questions that need to be answered. How does a purposeless universe account for morality?. 

I agree there are lots of demerits in religion. I am an agnostic theist myself. However, i dont see how demerits of religion justifies Atheism. The main question of life still remains unanswered. Religion still serves some purpose to life. The concept of God remains valid. 

You are also talking about ulterior motive for doing good. You are saying why not do good for the good that it is. Doing good for the fact it is good is a religious teaching. Not only that some teachings ask people to rise up and become more than just ordinary humans. How then do we make a better society if we do not rise up beyond the ordinary?

   

Freedom2012,

You need to argue with yourself and figure out what fulfills your life. Also, you need to know beyond the threshold about the discussion topic. You are all over and presenting yourself as a moving target.

Few points:

• ·         Science is not an antonym of religion. It’s foolish to pit science vis-à-vis religion.
• ·         Evolution doesn’t have any role in regards to morality. It’s the socio-cultural transformation over the period of time that shaped    societal norms, mores, and values.
• ·         Atheism is not a religion. If you don’t like that word, you can call the person “non-believer”.
• ·         Religion is not the cause of morality. Your ethical behavior may be influenced by religion, but you are mostly responsible for your own conduct.
• ·         Religion may act like a spiritual channel to you, but they are different as well.
• ·         Agnostic theist is self-contradictory to me. It’s an attempt to wager an insurance for just-in-case scenario.
• ·         The concept of God, religion is your PRIVATE affair. So is my non-belief. It’s better for everyone to keep religion up you-know-where and not impose morality to anyone.
• ·         Finally, I have debited more than my two cents in this thread.

@alternate bro,

1) It is only when Scientists say categorically that there is no God that we have an issue. In fact it is unscientific to make such assumptions. There are many Theists among scientists too.

2)Lord Ram is considered a good son and husband, that is why in hinduism they follow his morals. Bharat is considered a good brother. In Christianity, followers take the morals and teaching of Christ as something to emulate. Buddhists follow the teachings and morals of Buddha.  

3)Atheism behaves like a religion. They have an agenda. Stalin even encouraged schools to teach Atheism.

4)Being agnostic is not an insurance but rather an acknowledgement about the mystical nature of life.

5)Religion is a private affair. God as a conscious designer of life is not a private affair.

6)You gave your 2 cents and got 500 bucks for it. I hope it was worth it.

 Science ( Combination of Physics, Chemistry and BIOLOGY  including Math).  When, biology is brought in the picture, it directly relates to life and organisms.
Chemistry and physics were born when the universe started.Biology is new in the sense 14 billion history of universe. Life has started only 3-4 billion years ago according to recent statistics and discoveries of fossils and comparing history of earth. Rock from the moon to helped scientist to say earth and moon's age. Now, Sociology and religions of human beings are even more recent 100,000 yrs or even may be less. 

Chemistry and biology seems closely related when it comes to life. A small chemical changes in an organism, will cause living being to become non living thing in a second. Hydrogen and oxygen are gases when they are seperate but as they come together they form water. Reaction to form new compound with given right temperature and pressure and other factors are also properties of matter ( don't ask why H and O makes water not alchohol). As oxygen and hydrogen combines with carbon, the whole chemistry changes and so does the properties of matter.  When heat, pressure and temperature are right with all these chemical mixture, a new compound with new property develops which are not properties of each elements ( meaning boiling point, melting point, reactivity, pH of oxygen, hydrogen etc). Ignition of life from should have been from these chemical when they were primitive ( Not walking, talking like today) Meaning they were just chemical floating and reacting in pool of chemicals forming new compounds. Not even a cells are formed till this time ( Not one or two days but millions and may be billion years, our life is just 80 yrs on average now imagine 1 billion year which is not that fast). In this pool, a first or many proteins should have been formed. which were just complex molecule formed because of physical conditions. Famous Miller-Urey experiment proved it that GOD did not mixed it together. These protein's formed a chain polar/ non polar all kind of chemistry. Among these vast chains, some had property to replicate under suitable condition. Why replicate ? Like hydrogen attaches with another hydrogen to form hydrogen gas H2 or same with oxygen O2.  Its must be chemical property of those combinations of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphate to combine with similar compound. Now, dont get confused, its not making a new carbon out of no where, but it is just making same chemical partner just like  as its  property. 
Now, from protein to RNA to DNA to virus, virus to plants, plants to animals. The journey of life started. Amazing !!! Remember, we are very complex animals but we are animals, no different than others but only with intellegence. A zygote acts like single celled bacteria, from single cell to 3 lbs baby. Unicellular bacterias are individual organisms just not related to each other. Cells are fundamental units of life.  Our body are big COMPLEX colony of cells who are just trying to live or continue its reaction.
TO be continued.

@8848m bro,
so dont you think that makes life even more interesting and complex to understand?. Why would you deny god categorically based on what you are saying?.

Freedom2012

You said morality is based on religion which is so very far away from the truth. Morality does not need to be related to religion but it can be seen that way.

Morality is based on personal interpretations. If someone punching you hurts then you know that punching is not a good thing since it hurts. That's your morals. Stabbing with a knife, killing, stealing etc everything that you would prefer not to be done onto you, are probably wrong which is how you form your own morals. You don't need centuries old folk tales to learn your morals.

Some of the morals based on religion can be damning of other people's rights. Some can simply be deceptive. Morality should be based on humanity.

 One of the best debates I've watched on Morality and God.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMBVlOFc8Go

@freedom: you make claim of the source yet you don't even know what it is, where it is... for that matter i believe in existence of  santa clause. the evidence is all around you wait till next christmas. you are just beating around the bush yet no significant proof is presented. 

Ha you boast religion teches people morality? morality comes from within, good is good and bad is bad...there is no need of a religion to teach one what is good and what is bad.  which religion are you refering to anyway? the one that divides people into caste and creed and teaches to look down on fellow man? or the one that sees anyone not following their religion as the ones going to burn in hell? or the one that teaches people that it is okay to kill anyone who are not following their belief? please explain.

@chaurey, @rethink,
my answers and questions are the same as that of William Lane Craig above. Understanding morality from a scientific perspective makes as much sense as you and i building castles in the air and getting rich by renting it out.

Freedom,
perhaps you didn't listen to what Sam Harris has to say then! He's absolutely brilliant in that regard and only way to refute him would be to use illogical arguments like you do, and in that case, the conversation has to stop. One can't find logic with irrationality!

To elaborate on Chaurey's point and sam harris's brilliant argument is that if religion teaches morality -- then you're saying it is good or bad only because someone is saying so. by that definition, someone blowing airplanes to  a bldg is doing a very moral thing from  his/her perspective.

@snurp,
i have listened to many such debates online, including this one. Atheists always come up with unreasonable arguments. They fail to explain how can a purposeless life account for morality and how an unconscious origin justifies morality.
They always bring unreasonable arguments like how some folks following certain religion do evil in the name of religion. Even if all the religion are wrong, how can one deny the absence of conscious design to life?.
Morality is only a tiny part of this argument. Being human gives a meaning to life. It makes life meaningful. A meaningful life is not a purposeless life, so i dont understand how you can use that in your favour.

 Freedom -- Being human alone doesn't give meaning to life. We're one of millions of species that share this planet and no matter how wonderfully special you think you're, its just a matter of time, like all species we'll go instinct. But then to understand all that you'd have to study science, which is incredibly logical and rational and subject to change with time unlike the dogmatic religion. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you give it a supernatural connotation ---that is arguing for evidence of absence which is NOT LOGICAL. Look at moon --  500 years ago people claimed it was one of the gods. We now have footprints on it. But that is besides the point. So, if you're saying scientists bring illogical arguments, I'd have to stop arguing with you. Cause really there is no point! Kudos to you for understanding principles that noone understands and figuring it out (mysteriously perhaps)!

@snurp, yes some scientists are most illogical at times,

1)They totally change the meaning of the Uknown by saying that the Unknown is also science. Religious folks are the ones to say that the unknown is but the unknown.

2)Morality is minor part of belief in conscious design. The concept of good and bad is adjustable in a purposeless world however God gives a purpose for morality which is not adjustable.

3)Scientists say something can come out from nothing and still follow science. We say that this is not possible and there is no evidence for that. That is only possible through conscious design.

4)Scientists say that the question to life is a question itself which is infinite. We disagree and use logic to close the god of gaps by attributing life to conscious design that is eternal. We get answers, you gets questions.

5)Being human with appeal to humanity has no scientific basis as Science cannot guide morality. So you are appealing to something that is not scientific at all.

Love, which is the most important aspect of life, is neither scientifically understandable nor quantifiable. But we all know that love exists. You love your children, your parents, your wife, fellow human beings, etc,  but you cannot give proof of love using Science. So you see not everything in life needs a certificate from Science to exist.