I think my ignorance will show through, but I don't see how you have refuted God. We can not know what is outside the universe, can we? You do not know whether it is void or not, and I can not see how the universe could have possibly come together to create life, without some sort of guiding intelligence.

Yet another stolen concept fallacy. Everything we know and can concieve of necessarily derives from our experience, and our experience is quite obviously limited to the universe. Thus, if we are asserting that there is some sort of thing outside the universe, then we are necessarily negating our ability to make assertions about it (like asserting that it is a conscious intelligent entity) because any properties we could attach necessarily derive from our experience, which derive from, um, well...the universe. If you tried to get around this by asserting that God is inconceivable then you are creating a useless mystery of your own devising.

It's not the rate of expansion of the universe that determines the ability of these objects to form. It's the critical density. That the universe is expanding depends on the density of the universe, and the two constants associated, Omega (Ω) and Lambda. This is not to be confused with Lambda in physics, which represents wavelength. All material bodies have a force of attraction between them which is precisely proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them and the size of the body in question. This is Newton’s Inverse Square Law. Since Einsten’s General Relativity, we have understood that this works because gravity is caused by the distorting effect of material on spacetime, The immediately obvious problem with this is that it means that all material bodies should quickly rush towards each other and crush into a fiery pinprick. The reason this does not occur is because the universe, as in space-time itself, is expanding. As we have discovered, the universe is expanding due to Dark matter. Now, this is where Omega comes into play. The density of matter in the universe will determine Omega. Since all material bodies attract, and the expansion of space time forces them apart, the density of matter in the universe and the vacuum energy (which corresponds to dark energy in value) will determine its ultimate fate.

This will give the immediate density 10^-9s after the BB. As you can see, it is enormous. However, we are interested in the long term consequences of density:

If Omega is precisely zero, then the acceleration of the universe and the gravity of matter will be in precise equilibrium and thus the universe will expand at a precise constant rate. If Omega is smaller than one then the expansion of the universe will wind down, and if it is precisely one, the universe will simply wind down and stop expanding, and if Omega is greater than one, then the density of matter will be overpowering and the universe will accelerate and then crush back into a fiery pinprick, as the universe rushes backwards into a fiery pinprick by parabolic expansion and then contraction.

We have discovered by means of measuring the redshift of supernovae, that none of these things are happening. The universe is not constantly expanding, decelerating, or contracting. In fact, it is accelerating in expansion, which is given by the dotted line on the graph marked accelerating. Now, it is strictly inaccurate to state that material objects such as stars and such cannot form under other values for Omega. For example, if Omega were greater than 1, then we would still have all these objects, but the universe would start to wind down and accelerate in the other direction after anything from 15 billion to a trillion years after its formation. The particular value of omega that we have now is certainly not the only Omega value that could allow for the existence of the things you mentioned. The only thing that would not allow for it is if omega was sufficiently high for the universe to crush itself moments after its initial expansion, or if the lambda value was too small to prevent all material bodies from attracting each other. Whether it is actually possible for a universe to form initially under such conditions is not known. There are probably other sets of lambda-omega values which will have similar boundary conditions.

Well, the only reason I ever did believe is because of a betrayal of trust when I was in my most gullible state (a baby).  Growing up I never got satisfactory answers to why I couldn't see god, hear god, talk to god, feel god, detect god by radar, or otherwise even confirm the existence of god.  Around the age of ten, I read the bible not knowing that encouragement to do so was reverse psychology, and while I didn't understand much of it at that age, what I did see seemed both horrific and fairy tale-ish.  Even before the age of ten I couldn't rationalize the ideal that god is all powerful and made man how he wanted to yet it is our fault we're inherently bad and god can only forgive us by 'sacrificing' himself to himself.

Throughout school, we read other mythologies in literature class, and I was left wondering what makes a bunch of Middle Eastern tribals more correct than Greeks, Japanese, Egyptians, or native Americans giving that all of their stories sound equally preposterous.  We also learned a lot of history in school, and an alarming number of the wars we read about were religiously motivated or at least enabled by religion.  More importantly, we learned observable, provable facts that contradict the bible.

I was a closet atheist all through my teenage years, not believing, but still going to church (my dad was a baptist preacher) and playing along.  Around the age of 22 I read the bible again, and realized that it truly is horrific tribal bullshit.  A few years later, one of my older sisters died, and her shameless jeebuz informercial funeral really effected me and I just couldn't even pretend anymore.

Last year, I started studying psychiatry in my spare time because my family has a long history of depression, under achieving and suicide, and I've learned that many of the biggest fuck ups made by my parents and their parents were religiously motivated.

This brings me to the grumpy disgusted by religion 26 year old person I am today.

hope that answers your question.

I was born into a secular family. We never talked about religions or Gods, and, thus, I was an atheist by default. 

Aside from that, the Bible is full of atrocities and contradicts itself, as well as history, geography, psychology, biology, physics, chemistry, and logic in general. Obviously, the same goes for the Quran, Torah, Book of Mormon, Scientology books, etc.

Also, there is virtually zero evidence for any specific God or religion, and almost all religions are mutually exclusive. None of them are more plausible than the others. On the more abstract subject of whether or not some entity created the universe, I haven't observed any good evidence that suggested this. Therefore, in conclusion, why should I believe in God?

MCsChallenge, any argument for God based on aspects of the Universe being somehow so unlikely to have arisen from non-conscious natural processes are inherently fallacious, since you then still require an explanation for how this God came to be, and similarly for any higher 'God' needed to create 'our' God.

No matter how theists try to argue against this by asserting that God is eternal, or more devious redefinitions of logic itself, are transparent dodges, pure assertions, without justification.

Since even believers will agree that we don't have all knowledge about reality, there is no basis for confidently asessing just how improbable it would have been for any aspect of the Universe to arise naturally.

Since we see all the time in nature that complexity can arise from simple initial conditions, requiring only a flow of ordinary energy (heat, radiation, kinetic energy, etc) as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is nothing intrinsically contradictory to our current understanding in the Universe arising from the tiniest quantum fluctuation, or somehow emerging from a pre-existing sea of background random energy.

I was raised a christian and whole-heartedly believed until late in my teenage years.  At that point in time I started seeing how the practical application of christianity caused immense suffering for members of my family.  That allowed me to step back and critically examine the basis of christian belief.  I soon realized it was all based on superstitious and fascist b.s.  That then led me to question the existence of the classical definition of god  - both the father and holy spirit characterizations.  I never have found any evidence for the existence of either.  I have however learned a lot about the origins of life from both physics and biology. 

I think a fair number of theists do see these contradictions, but just don't care.  I had reasons to break from religion because it was causing suffering that did affect me.  If you don't see such suffering in your immediate world, then there isn't such of an incentive to make the shift from theist to atheist in the United States.  Much of Europe apparently has a different societal situation that I find fascinating. 

Never took religion seriously. An early acquaintence with science, thanks to my non-believing father, no doubt helped there.

What we find from a whole lot of accounts from different people is that when people brought up religious move away from religion it is typically a gradual process, as they come across more and more examples of the problems in reconciling religious teachings with growing knowledge about the world. I have heard several people say that it was ultimately due to an attempt to make their faith even more solid by reading the Bible more thoroughly and asking questions of their ministers/pastors/preachers, that lead them to notice even more of the logical problems and conflicts with secular/scientific knowledge that lead them to realize it was all a fairy story.

Major life events affecting belief are much more common in driving people from a casual indifference to religion, rather than a firmly intellectually based Atheism, into the folds of Religion, as religious family and friends strongly encourage them to find solace in the Church after some emotional upheavel.

It's funny how the common assumption of believers is that Atheists must have had some terrible experience which drove them 'away from God', and improved understanding of religion will gradually 'open the heart' of the unbeliever to God, whereas the opposite is much more common - the more we understand all aspects of the world and humanity, the less plausible is the religious story, whle it takes a major emotional trauma to drive a desperate person to week solace in faith.

MCsChallenge We can not know what is outside the universe, can we?

Does not the entire premise of a god demand that we do know what is outside the universe? How do the god believers claim to know? Some people they never met wrote about events thousands of years ago whom they choose to believe were witnesses to the actions of that which is outside upon the inside. Why do you folks choose to believe such things?

Does it not also demand the unfounded assumption the universe has an outside? It is fine to say you have a special insight into what is outside but to get serious attention to have to show there is an outside and that there is something of interest there. As you cannot do that, what is the point?

A mountain of reasons:

1) I was raised in a secular family (my parents have recently been 'born again', but thankfully, too late to impact any developing minds).

2) I want evidence before I buy an assertion. Good, solid, 'Here it is', evidence. None has ever been presented for God, magic or the supernatural; every time somone has claimed to have said evidence, they have been shown to be frauds.

3) 'God' is a meaningless term. No coherent description has ever been attached to it, and no two theists appear to be able to independently provide a clear description for who or what God is. Moreover, very few theists can even agree on a given description for God; there is no majority consensus among the believers.

4) The Bible is an erroneous text. The Q'ran is equally erroneous. The work of L. Ron Hubbard is erroneous. The Book of Mormon is erroneous...

Every single piece of literature supposedly inspired by an awesome deity, the creator of our universe, is laden with factual errors of immense scale, characters whom were fictitious and accounts that with absolute certainty did not transpire. These are simply not reasonable records of the Earth's history.

5) The deity myths are clearly 'borrowed' from each other, carrying forward the inaccuracies of the past. Modern day 'New Age' information deities are no different, relying strictly on emotional appeal and a myriad of accompanying logical fallacies to stay afloat amidst the public.

6) There is no facet of the cosmos where a deity yields a better explanation than natural law. Evoking a deity always only offers further mystery, which a theist can only address through special pleading.

7) Goal-posts constantly shift on the theist's side of the discussion, 'God' always being pushed into the realm just outside our spheres of knowledge.

Rarely will a theist ever maintain a calm, rational demeanor when defending their position. They fall back on the strength of their conviction alone and rarely are found trying to establish their argument rather than attacking the credibility or motives of their opponents.

9) The iconic, 'big league' Theistic defenders / debaters are proven hate-mongers and liars (Dinesh D'Souza, I'm looking at you). 

10) Science has a proven track record of offering tangible results to humanity, religion does not. The latter has, throughout history, always attempted to squash the former through bigotry, fear and politics.

Those are the most pressing things that spring to mind. Really, to be honest, I just have never been able to fathom how people could believe in such a ridiculous thing as a magical deity. It strikes me as bizarre on a very profound level.

I'm going to second this. I don't spend as much time around the forum as some, perhaps, but I really have to commend MCsChallenge for

--Lack of automatic condescending tone in very first post

--Openness to new ideas

--Civility, politeness, respect

--Lack of self-righteousness

--Appears to make no automatic assumptions about atheists (well, one forgivable one)

--Suspicious lack of appeals to metaphor and woo-woo

--Suspicious lack of appeals to scripture

And this is a visiting theist!? Wha??? Let's hope he/she doesn't change on us!

Can we conduct some MRIs on MCsChallenge and, say, Mephibosheth? I want to compare so we can find out where the cancer is hiding. =]

Oh, guys, stop responding to it. Hamby already established earlier that MCS is an atheist. The OP was here as part of a challenge on CARM.

 There is an atheist sub-forum at CARM, and there was a dispute about tolerance with atheists vs. theists. Thus, the Christians challenged some atheists to pretend to be Christians on an atheist website. They wanted to prove how hateful atheists are. 

But, I can't find the thread where Hamby posted the link to CARM. 

What makes you think that we had to move away from theism? I myself was never one to believe in the first place.

So the basic premise of this thread turned out to be defective. Even so, this is where we are telling our stories. So let me tell mine.

Some of my earliest memories are of being sent to the church nursery where kids who were just too young for indoctrinations went to play while the “big people” went to do important stuff. I think that I may have gone to “big people” church for a while but I don't recall any details as my father had some issue right around that time. After that, the church thing was never mentioned at home.

Fast forward ten years. My parents were divorced and my mother decided that we were religious people. So here I am a 17 year old guy who is in full rebellion mode and I am assigned to ultra-conservative Anglicanism by my mother. Just a bit late for a proper indoctrination but whatever.

Eventually, I left home and drifted through a bunch of churches looking for the one that made some sense. None of them did.

One had a bible reading plan that stated “Read the new testament beginning with the book of John”. You don't think that they are trying to hide the dirty laundry in the corners or anything, do you? Too bad for them that my earlier upbringing left me fully aware that the crucifixion took place in four different locations and happened at four different times of day. They are playing some game.

Another basically forbid reading the bible at all. Pastor was a very special person and he was allowed to read the bible. Pastor would tell us what the bible said and what that saying meant. During that time, I came to learn that Jesus had short hair, no facial hair and wore a white shirt with a narrow black tie. Pastor says so and he should know, after all, he has read the bible and he knows what is in it. More games.

Young Earth Creationism holds a special place place for me. I already had a high school diploma, so I know what science says on that and it makes sense. Yet probably half of the churches that I tried told me that I had to pay lips service to the lie in order to be a Christian. Um, the ninth commandment says not to lie and I must lie to be one of the very special in crowd? OK, got that. Um, the third commandment say not to make use of one's religion for earthly purposes and I must knuckle under to what is basically bullshit. OK, I can get on board here too.

That is, of course, only what half of the churches said. How about what do all the churches say? That is much easier. You must accept Christ in order to be a Christian. If nothing else, the statement is internally logical. However, it doesn't actually say anything.

I have to believe that some famous dead guy existed? Well, I believe that George Washington existed, on that ground, Jesus ain't exactly a stretch. I have to believe the things that he supposedly said. Again, not much of a stretch. Most of that stuff is about being a generally decent person. Mind you, I don't need to accept Jesus to know that lying is not a great thing. Unless it is about evolution, then it appears that it is required that we lie. George Washington also has a thing to say about lying and that is not to do it. And the story is itself not true. Go figure.

Bother it all, religion has nothing to offer that can't be had from outside of religion. Outside of religion, the world is a complex place and nobody much minds if there were no cherry trees in Virginia in the 1730's.

what?  i believe in the ninja turtles!  you don't believe in the ninja turtles???  FUCK YOU!  FUCK YOU for not believing in the ninja turtles!  you're gonna go to TURTLE POWER HELL, man, where bebop and rocksteady will take turns fucking you up your heathen ass while you're FORCED to watch the heretical secret of the ooze, which is evil because they didn't let corey feldman reprise the role of donatello's voice!

FUCK YOU, man!