I'll second that motion.

Hooray for creativity!

A trolls ability to recycle the same idea over and over and over again is utterly breathtaking. It is done in such a way that the reader is curious and hangs on to the end of the post to once again be disappointed that no new point was made. Nothing ventured AND nothing gained.

Thanks troll, you make me smile.

 So none of you are actually gonna argue with it? Just attack it ad hominem?

Go to the Google search this site link on the left side of your screen. Place "atheism a religion" and see what you get.

It is an OLD OLD OLD tired argument .

Perhaps you will find the answer you seek by doing that search?

Good luck!

Still, old and tired. Read this: Christian Pownage 101

PLace your argument in that thread.

This is rather curious. The atheistic position is simply that, in absense of evidence for a supernatural creator and in light of a naturalistic explanation for human origins, a deity is both unnecessary and unlikely. On what basis do you form your opinion that God is a more likely explanation for the origin of our species than naturalistic explanations?

This is a naked assertion. Science is interested in all of the prying Ws (Who, Where, What, Why, When) as well as How. Religion simply proposes to sing and scream assertions, in a bid to look like they know absolutely everything, without any actual merit in what they say.

Science has real, practical applications that emerge from it's practice (we call these 'technologies'), while religion, as best, serves as a source for false security and lazy comfort.

This is convoluted and incorrect. Atheism does not outright 'deny' anything; it's an observation that there is not sufficient evidence to support the existence of a divine being, and so concluding that there is no compelling reason to believe that the divine being exists. This view can view very easily countermanded; all you have to do is provide compelling evidence of the divine.

Atheism does not deny the existence of the  question, 'Does god exist?' (what an add concept to assert... a group of individuals not believing that a sentence exists? ) - it simply answers that question with, 'No, not likely'.

Those scientists you derided earlier do not think that we just 'popped out of nowhere'. On the contrary - that's what creationists believe. Abiogenesis theories, while in their infancy, are shedding a great deal of light on how life began on Earth, while evolution and natural selection have conclusively shown how life evolved and became more complex / better adapted to it's environment over time. The process of evolution is ongoing, as well - in another few thousand years, we can expect to see life on Earth being far different than what's here today. It's an open-ended system.

 Wether science wants to answer "why" or not, it can't. Why is a question of motive and reason, science is useless here. Science is good for how.

Atheists deny it. Agnostics say that they can't know so they won't say. 

If there is no answer to the question "Why" then there is no question.

Actually if you go back far enough, it either comes to: 

everything came from something that just happened to pop into existence

or

everything came from something that was created. 

Which is more reasonable?

An excellent demonstration of fundamentally misunderstanding the origins of the universe. Troll with it, baby...

I know he's a troll but I feel compelled to say these things:

THAT MAN YOU JUST MADE IS MADE OF STRAW.

If you can ask a question, there must be an answer? And its the vaguest fucking question on Earth and you haven't defined it or anything else? And you can't find an answer? Really?

THE MAN YOU JUST MADE IS MADE OF STRAAAAAW.

Because why is a question of motive it's not a question of whether religion or science is in a better position to answer, it's a matter of whether it is an appropriate question. If motive is not applicable to the question it simply makes no sense to ask why.

As for the idea that human beings must have been created because they are intelligent, well what about God then? If God is the most intelligent then that logic should imply there was an even higher intelligence that created God, and so on and so forth - like one answer to the question "why" can always be questioned again.

Well, if you take away the weighted words, you get:

Everything popped into existence from an as-yet unknown cause,

or

Everything came from something that just happened to pop into existence.

Really, Thomas Aquinas tried to push first cause back to God, but that still leaves the whole of the causal chain with an improbable beginning. Placing God at the beginning does nothing to fulfill the logical necessities of First Cause. Better to assume that First Cause is intrinsically illogical, as it leads to self-contradiction.

As for the question of "why?", that reminds me of a letter to the editor of a college newspaper concerning a Stephen King novel: "How could you do such a why?" Basically, it's semantic nonsense to discuss the "why" of the universe, or even the "why" of reality. Doing so inserts God into the equation where God wasn't before. The presumption of "why" is predicated upon a presupposition of prior will -- that is, God. By asking "why?" and answering "God," you are merely creating a self-contained circular argument, which is philosophically void. You are caught in a cul-de-sac of ignorance.

Finally, and most importantly, we know nothing about reality that reality has not told us. As much as our minds contemplate the possible, our only knowledge of the actual is that which we have pried from reality. The only meaningful and usefull way of doing so (as Kevin has pointed out) is the proper application of the scientific method. No other epistemology has yielded consistent, reproducible results. As a result, it is the only tool we have for reliably investigating the nature of reality.

Anything not supported by the knowledge gained from the scientific method is at best speculation, and at worst, making shit up. There are any number of ideas that have resulted from making shit up, and not believing them is perfectly rational. This includes the concept of "God," which is a result of making shit up. It doesn't even fall into the realm of speculation, as there is no basis for speculation, other than our fear of thunder, or our quest for a way to influence the growth of crops.

So, to sum up: Not believing in shit that has been made up is perfectly rational.

also.... if atheism is a religion

1) bald is a hair color

2) not collecting stamps is a hobby

3) not playing football is a sport

4) off is a tv channel          (you asked for it)

I'm disappointed that no one takes the seatbelt bait.      I've yet to find a theist so sure in prayer over science that they use it instead of their seatbelt.   (if science and therefore physics is BS, etc.)  

 You dont know that there is no god. Without that knowledge, the assumption that a god does not exist is a belief.

You are all talking about proof like its something that you have for anything. There is no proof of anything. Go ahead and prove to me that this computer exists. Go ahead, and try. You won't be able to, but you will certainly be very pissed if I believe in a god that I have no way of proving to be real. 

Oh, by the way, I am not a christian except in the purest sense of the word and belong to no religion but my own. 

My definition for the question why is in the question itself. 

Why are we here? Why do we think? Why does this universe exist? Why do humans seem different than the animals and trees and other forms of life on this Earth? Why does my burrito get hot when I microwave it? 

Just because you can't use science to answer these questions (dont tell me because the microwaves within the microwave heat up the water, cause ill just hit you with another why and those kind of arguments get old really quick) does not mean that we should cease the asking of them. So please, tell me atheists, what point is there to living if all of this is nothing? 

 How can we progress if we ever cease asking questions? A reason to find the motive behind our existence is that it will only help us to better understand our purpose. If you say that we have no purpose then why do you still live? 

I cant find my other thread so ill post this question here:

Do any of you believe in right and wrong? What about the equality of man? Any of you believe in universal and apparent truths? Do you trust common sense or logic? Do you believe that humans are in any way special? 

All these beliefs require first the belief in a deity.

".... no religion but my own." ~ Jack ////

   Tell us more , all your own eh ? 

 Thanks for being pissed off Jack !  Now try this approach,

"Wisdom of the Buddha" 8 min,   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTsb-woP3jI

Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot  , 3 min .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

 [(   sorry RRS , for posting that so often , but heck ! .....  )]

Not necessarily.

"Right" and "wrong" are certainly artefacts of society -- what is correct behavior in one society is not necessarily correct in another. However, using simple logic and basic game theory, one can derive a set of fundamental morals that, universally applied, would result in a peaceful, mostly-happy society.

For instance, a recent philosopher suggested that, when designing a society, you design it as if you do not know the role you will play in that society. This seems a simple way to work towards equality and fairness. Basically, it boils down to The Golden Rule, as my Dad used to say. If we were to treat everyone with the respect we ourselves believe we deserve, the world would be a better place.

And ultimately, that is how I have derived my morals.

I wish to live in a society that provides intelligent entertainment, encourages thoughtful debate and curiosity and imagination, works towards fairness and equality, and is pleasant without being stifling or intrusive. I wish this society, because it is the society in which I would like to live.

To work towards that society, I must encourage those traits in our current society. I essentially life as if that society already existed. I treat others with the respect and fairness deserving of the society, because I expect the same in return.

God (or a "higher power," or "ultimate purpose" ) is not required for morality. The only requirement is the desire to live in a fair and just society. The reason to wish to live in a fair and just society is because it's better than being a peasant in an unfair and unjust society.

Not killing them promotes fairness. Plus, what does killing the weak and stupid achieve? What is your goal in doing so? In general, it achieves nothing.

The whole "survival of the fittest" trope is incorrect, in general. If you simply allow evolution to select who breeds and who does not, you'll end up with "better" results, and with wider genetic variety (which is good, in general). There's no need to attempt eugenics.

And remember: we are designing society (in my proposed world) as if we don't know which role we will play. We certainly don't want to be selected for removal from society.

As I said, the desire to live a good life isn't derived from a God, it's derived from the desire to live in a good society, because that is the most pleasant sort of life.

When the "all men are created equal" slogan was written, it mostly included land-owning men. It did not include women, vagabonds, or slaves. So the whole "self-evident" disclaimer was a bit disingenuous, a dodge. They certainly didn't mean all people.

Logic is not common sense. What often falls under the label of "common sense" is the antithesis of logic. It used to be "common sense" to leech an ill person. It used to be "common sense" that the world was flat, and you'd fall off the edge if you got too close. It has recently been "common sense" that it's good to wash with anti-bacterial soap. And so on.

On the other hand, logic indicates that it is unlikely that God exists. Yet it is accepted "common sense" that He does.

There is the quantitative difference in cognitive ability, if that's what you mean. Also, duck tastes really good. I don't know about human. And it's fun to shoot ducks. It might be fun to shoot humans, too, but since I don't want anyone shooting me, and I eat what I kill, I tend not to shoot other people. Plus, it'd be too easy. Ducks at least put on a good hunt, and there's the hours spent out in the wet, cold water, hiding behind a blind. People, on the other hand, are stupid, and don't know how to react when someone is shooting at them.

But the dogs love it.

That's a false dichotomy. Many atheists are also agnostic. Many theists are also agnostic. "Agnostic" is just an admittal that there's no way to have certain knowledge of the existence of God. "Atheist" or "theist" is the tag used to indicate whether or not you believe God doesn't or does exist.

Me, I'm certain God, as commonly defined, doesn't exist. He is philosophically and logically irrelevent. In fact, I believe He is a red herring, a distraction from honest thought and discourse. He's a cop-out.

Speaking of which, where do you stand on the issue of gay marraige?

 There is a presumed link between religion  and morality. One that in my view is not rationally defensible. But you are attacking other peoples conception of morality (even though you don't know what it is) based solely on the premise that moral statements can not be objective unless they are somehow based in the supernatural (which you have no evidence even exists by the way) which is wrong  and reveals that like most religious people you don't know anything about ethics, at least not comparatively.

Moral codes can be based on reason. The categorical imperative is an example of a moral theory that is objective and atheistic, and unlike religious moral theories it can be defended with reason and doesn't rely on concepts as flimsy and dubious as faith or immateriality.

Everyone has heard the expression "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". You're not in a position to question another person's conception of morality when yours rests on such a shaky foundation. No moral theory is perfect but religious ones are among the worst and the most untenable . Take the simple moral theory that "morally right" is a matter of being commanded by god and "morally wrong" is a matter of being forbidden by god. It's a seductive idea because it seems to offer simple answers to  difficult questions like why bother with ethics at all, why not just do what you want. If you accept this view there's a simple answer, if you ignore ethics god will punish you.

But there are so many problems with this conception of morality that one must accept it uncritically because it can't be defended. To start with it's nebulous. How does god make something moral just by commanding it? It defies reason and in my view is demonstrably  false, if god said that murder, rape and stealing were moral it wouldn't make those things moral. You might say that god wouldn't command you to do those things but why not? If gods command is what makes something moral or immoral then he wouldn't be telling you to do something wrong. Consequently that would also mean god's commands are arbitrary since there's no preceding reason for god to decide that something is right or wrong. There is also the implication that if god didn't exist then murder, rape and theft would not be immoral because there would be no god to make them immoral. But there are plenty of reason to think that you shouldn't do those things outside of where gods opinion lies on the subject. You might say that god doesn't actually make things moral he just tells you what is moral and it's moral for another reason (which is the only other option that exists) but by doing that you've abandoned a religious conception of morality altogether in favor of another one that has no explanatory power anyway, because you would be saying that morals don't come from god, and you don't know where they come from or why something is moral, all you know is what god said.

This may not be your conception of morality but I doubt that your conception or morality could be much better. So why should anyone here really give a shit about your objections to their meta-ethical justification of morality?

I was with you until that last question.  Yes, ask questions: how do you know the god you believe in isn't lying to you?  How do you know you're not a "brain in a vat"?  What if you're wrong, and the Jains are right?

My life does have a purpose, and I have the responsibility of defining it, living up to it and fulfilling it; I don't get to pass that buck to anyone.  I'm here, and it's my job to make my life what I want it to be.

One more question: why does your belief in god change what you think is a good way to treat people?

Yes, yes, yes, logic and no, respectively.

Please clothe your assertions before leaving the house with them.

I.e., prove that your positions require belief in a god (any god, not specifically the one in which you were taught to believe).

Ironic you should say that because the stupid juvenile argument was that of Rich Rodriguez.  Rich just received his PhD and found a job at a major university, he will be teaching their first ever course on atheism as a part of their philosophy department.  What an idiot he must be.

'Proof' is a strcitly mathematical term; I don't think anyone here used it (and if they did, it was a slip of the tongue. Let's not start arguing semantics). So, no - there is no 'proof' my computer exists; just a conclusion that it exists based on evidence. I can operate it, I can examine it, I take take it apart and examine the components, I can get really technical and examine the materials that it's made out of, we have solid documentation on how computers work, who manufactures computers, who invented the first (modern) computers, who made the first operating systems, etc.

Which of the above evidences (a mere fraction of the evidences we have the computers exist) apply to God? Can we examine God? Can we find-out what God is made of? Do we know where God came from? Do we know who conceptualized God/Gods? Do we know the details of how God-like creation works?

Of course not.

So why would God be just as real to you as your computer, when he lacks any and all of the same evidences you use to deduce the fact that your computer exists.

So your right and wrong are based on your opinion of what is societally acceptable? What if my opinion of right and wrong differs from yours? Who is right and what determines that? 

What is fair? What is just? These things have no meaning if there is no soul. There is no fairness or justice in a pack of wolves. You base morality on the flawed judgement of humanity and it means nothing. 

How do you think evolution selects those who breed and those who don't?

If we killed every person with a genetic disease, than the disease could be eradicated. How would that be bad for society? Or we could enslave 10% of the population so the other 90% would se a greater standard of living. If there is no common thread between man that separates him from other life, something special, like a soul, then none of that would be wrong. 

Do you believe that all men women and children are equal. Cause we are in no way genetically equal.\

How does logic indicate that a god does not exist?

So its not wrong to kill humans, its just scary? What if I don't care about being shot at, does that make it okay for me to murder you then? And easy? Try hunting me and see if I'm easier prey than a duck. 

So you do accept that atheism is the belief that god does not exist?

Agnostic: believes they do not and cannot know wether God or gods exist or not.

Atheist: denies the existence of God or gods. 

Do you honestly not see the difference? 

God is in no way a cop-out for me. I don't pray for rain or sunshine or any of that bullshit. My god created me and now its my choices what to do, and if I fail or choose wrong, then its my consequences. 

not that it has anything to do with the discussion but I really don't give a shit about gay marraige, legal illegal, Im not gay so I don't care. 

 So you don't believe in right or wrong? Its all based on whats right for you and whats right for me? 

Something higher and perfect would validate morality. Without it, there is no morality. Do you really not see how morality requires something more than man?

It is apparently right. Do you honestly believe that those who rape are normal happy individuals who just dont see rape as wrong? No they know its wrong, and that is probably why they do it. 

What logic is not common sense? And if not pure chance than what? Design? What else is there?

What mental difference? Like the fact that man, unlike any other animal can reason, and feel and have the desire to change their enviroment to better their situation instead of just adapting to it? Thats a pretty large difference. Ad kind of a jump to assume that it is only a higher complexity of the brain. 

Someone wasn't paying attention when Hamby went over this on the show.