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. 

Your point being? 

amen!!

thats what, magic and super power looks similar but they are totally diff.

 Thanks bro, nostalgia all over again.  This is exactly how I used to think after going through a few chapters of high school physics. 

In the process of answering life, Science opens up a lot of questions as well. So how does having more questions explain life?. Science admits that there will always be the god of gaps. When one gap closes, another one opens up. So it will be infinite and that they say is the answer to life. So they admit that we will always be left with where did this come from and how did this happen type questions making an infinite regress. And that they say is the answer to life.
So we learn here that Science, by their own admission, will never really answer life. Unless you believe a question is the answer to life there is no hope in getting your answer to life through Science.
And Atheism is a religion. It is the belief in the non existence of god or anything supernatural. It is the belief in the THEORY of evolution which is their version of the creation story. So they dont really believe in nothing. And they have an agenda.
Nothingness is just that Nothingness. Something does not come out from nothing.
Religion closes this god of gaps by answering that a divine conscious knowledge is responsible for life.

 religion claims to be the answer but never provides the proof of the answer. it is like some jamming the belief down your throat and you never question it. you are totally wrong about atheism being religion. atheism is the question to the claim about god/existence of god as claimed by many religious belief system. if you make claims then what is the validity of these claims being made. 

We only know 4% of the universe, the rest 96% is comprised of dark matter and dark energy. Scientists are clueless and  they cannot comprehend this 96%.
Scientists say "i dont know" all the time, so religion also should be given the freedom to say "i dont know" at times.
God is not a candy that i can take out from my pocket to show you.
If you take Cause and Effect, the only way an effect is satisfied thus preventing regress type questions is when the Cause is a conscious source.
Religion is an attempt to understand this divine conscious source. That is all that it is. By disproving religion, you do not disprove this source.
The proof is everywhere. What we know about Cause and Effect proves this source.
Using logic and knowledge that we get from life, there is simply no way, no evidence that something can come from nothing.
Otherwise we are left with ridiculous questions like "was there a time when there was no time?".
It is actually unscientific to say that there is no God because it is making assumptions about the unknow. That takes away the very purpose of being the unknown if you say that the unknown is also science.

1) You 5 senses can not sense something doesnt mean that thing exists.
2) Science has never disapproved God.

Ps: I am not into religion.

'Modern physics leaves no place for God in the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded.

Just as Darwinism removed the need for a creator in the sphere of biology, Britain's most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe. 

In his forthcoming book, an extract from which is published exclusively in Eureka, published today with The Times, Professor Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no". 

Far from being a once-in-a-million event that could only be accounted for by extraordinary serendipity or a divine hand, the Big Bang was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, Hawking says.'


 Science has my friend. Only because Scientist cannot utter is because of political and religious drama around the world. With all the understandings, You can conclude god was created by human being for things that were unexplainable. Last century, science progressed  so much that god delima is over. Man landed on the moon and now droping technology in Mars. 99 % match of genes with chimpanze and being science so much accurate in today's medicine, there is no place for god. Amusing fact is why people still fall for god thing. 
Good sixth sense example,
   One day I felt like I was going to win lottery. I bought one and got a winner. Then I really felt like Its winning day, went to casino loosing hundreds.

Its all about probability and accidents. One lucky sperm accidentally met a egg, you n I were born. 
 
Thou life is fasinating. Instinct to live and chemical reactions that keeps fueling life are just amazing. 

THen answer this two simple question:
1. Universe started from big-bang. Then who created the big-bang? Why?
2. Why do objects follow certain laws? Who made the laws?

Disproving Bible, Kuran or Geeta doesn't disprove the existence of a super being. You have to come with a more concrete answer than what you have posted above.

Freedom2012,
You resort to pseudo-spiritual abstract talks that are entirely self-serving and utterly misleading. The very first thing you say that we (the mankind, of course; and including you too) only know 4% of the Universe, which I believe you are talking about observable universe as it has been known the Universe to be infinite to us earthly beings . Your opinion (far from an assertion or any reasonable suggestion) tends to dismiss achievements of “Science” for its inability to explain unknowns- unknown or inexplicable at the time being. Yet your knowledge, whatever facts you know – that too not your innate acquisition -however much, is attributable to science. But your opinions – until you explain it or until it dawns onto me from unearthly power - I’ll keep on assuming comes from the fermentation of garbage that’s not even recyclable. I have a hypothesis that you only have 4% usable grey matters; rest of it filled with null particles, not only science but also the supernatural entity has any idea about, whatsoever.

Science doesn’t owe you anything, or anyone for that matter. Your belittling of Science, as a perceived nemesis just because it disproves myths (religious or not) and tries to explain phenomenon around, is a straw man fallacy. Your insecurity of Science, which is an inanimate object for an abstract straw man, is palpable in your accusation for its weakness – how “clueless” (borrowing your own word) can you be in asking an inanimate object to explain your faith (belief, or a dogma) and its implications. If you are resolute and firm about the dogma, which has been demonstrated to be immutable from your multiple posts, you don’t need to feel shaky about apostates that don’t share your belief (mind you, this is not fact – not even from any stretch known to rational human beings).

Your logical persuasion (or an attempt) to mystify “divine conscious” – maybe a sobriquet for religion, befuddles me. I don’t see a cogent argument, regardless of the topic itself. If you are trying to jabber religion by confusing lowly humans, you still didn’t succeed. Try harder. 

@8848m bro,
you need to go through my posts and come back with a rebuttal. Like i did to your post.

@alternate bro,
nothing but ad hominem. You did not put forth any rebuttal. Now why would i belittle Science, go through my posts again and show me where i belittled it. By its own admission, Science has said that we will always have a question at hand and that it is infinite. I was taught once that there are 9 planets, now i am told there are 8 planets. Not everything that comes out from Science is gospel and good for the world. Science also has killed people. Atomic bomb is not a religious invention.

Suppose your wallet is empty and you wake up the next day and find $500 in it. And you asked me how come?. I will tell you someone must have put it there. $0 doesnt become $500 just like that. Now you tell me you have $500 bucks which is correct. And you tell me it is in US dollars which is also correct. You further say that  it is made of cotton and linen. You say that you can buy a cheap laptop with it at Walmart. But the main question you fail to answer is how it got there. You tell me it is random, blind and automatic process. I disagree with you. For i see no evidence it is thus possible. So you are the one with much on your plate to prove, i am but saying the obvious.

 

Freedom2012,

You crack me up by saying the burden of proof is on people who refuse to believe the existence of God. You are the one who is making an argument- the onus of proof is on you. I believe in nothing, and there is nothing to prove there exist nothing, although I am not a nihilist.

The good thing about science is it admits it needs correction in presence of evidence that supports a hypothesis. Pluto is still there; it just doesn't fit the new definition of a planet. It's not like you refuse to believe in law of gravity and you start floating; the phenomenon exists regardless of your opinion.

The more explanation that we get due to scientific discoveries, the more understanding we have of Universe and our own existence. Funny enough, there are many people who accept these discoveries and incorporate their interpretation of these findings calling these discoveries compatible to intelligent design. But you have to be of different breed to apply creationism to retroactively profess your holy book to explain everything under Universe.

When you find 500 dollars that you didn’t have it with you, you are going to assume it came from a real person – you’re not going to think it came from a supernatural being because you know existence of human and not of god, but I won’t be surprised even if you think otherwise. Science does explain most about Universe and its expansion and big bang. There are empirical evidence to support these hypothesis and most importantly willingness to modify or even discard the hypotheses.

I don’t know myself what was there in the beginning of time. But we do have explanation of events thereafter. That’s immaterial and not even the moot point of this discussion. If you are telling me anything that’s not explainable is due to someone not existent’s work, I don’t believe it in principle – do you see the irony here? I know you don’t because your head is wrapped around to existence of a higher being – which itself is an innocuous idea. The issue is morality and divine suggestions that came from someone who doesn’t exist: I know you’ll tell me He is invisible; invisibility is a property of an object that exists and is hidden in presence of luminance. I’m not an invisible millionaire. If I don’t have million dollars/rupees/denomination of your choice, I am not a millionaire; I am in no way an invisible millionaire. I don’t exist to be as a millionaire because I am not. Nevertheless, I exist because I do.

You can continue to believe in whatever you wish, but don’t tell me prove your wishes. Don’t ask me explain inexplicable. Don’t try to instill me morality based upon your interpretation of rigid book - I understand humanity and the ecosystem I am in without reading a chapter from your book or anyone’s. At the risk of sounding smug and conceited, I proudly can say I came to conclusion from my own observation and not from something I blindly follow. And herewith, I also keep myself open to change in presence of evidence on my contrary. But please don’t ask me prove your fantasy.

Hay guys... Is this an essay competition or what? Lol...

People have the right to believe what they like. Just do not impose your beliefs upon others. That is how wars start and how life is wasted. Enjoy every second you have and be full of love. Be happy. :)

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.