There's probably no God

[ButlerKing]

I don't know any atheists who are like " I don't belive in god because I like to commit sins". but if you say so I belive you.

No Atheist would ever say that out publicly since they don't even believe God, besides even if they said this it would have revealed the kind of person he/she is.

[Aunt Hilda]

my point is to those people who are atheist and try to use justification for their own actions by claiming god don't exist, i know many atheist are like this, not saying some or even most are like that but many are.

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

i've yet to meet one of those supposed "many" atheists

No Atheist would ever say that out publicly since they don't even believe God, besides even if they said this it would have revealed the kind of person he/she is.

not an atheist

[Energia]

There could be some truth to religion keeping potentially evil people in check. Some of the most ruthless dictators in history were atheists with no morals or regard for human life. Joseph Stalin is a good example. It's not good to be an extreme on either side though.

I see evil doesn't matter with religion.
If one is evilish he will twist even the most beautiful of the credoes and the nicest of all religion to do evil.

Just look what did and still do, who more who less, Christiand and Muslims, who in abstract love to portray themselves as the good novel seekers.

We check what one do, not what he preach.

[Barbarossa]

Just because science does not have all the answers, does not mean religion by default has them instead. The burden of proof lies on religion, and if Christianity is just as valid as Ancient Greek mythology, all religions are equally invalid. To believe in organised religion simply for lack of a better alternative is not faith. It is naivety.

I don't want to push my beliefs on others, but I don't think that the law should EVER be influenced on metaphorical rantings. Especially rantings which have as much truth to them as any unsubstantiated proposition I could make right now. And once church seeps into state, I have a problem. Which is why the validity of religion must be addressed.

I'm not claiming that religion has answers to everything. One can be atheist and have inteligent and worthy arguments for his/her stand. But Dawkins is far from having that. Natural science with its methods cannot understand and even think about everything and therefore it lacks instruments to argue with religion. It is completly valid to use scientific facts and theories as part of argumentation.

Problem is that Dawkins tought operates with very strange mix of scientific facts and theories with what we can call political theology. Dawkins never question human dignity, human rights, which is irrational and religious (in a broader sense of word of course) to very same extent than religion. Nobody can ever proove with science that killing wild boar it is not the same as killing of human being. Dawkins also does not ever think about religion in a philosophical terms and he never puts science to the critique, which is essential (Nietzsche could help here ). I consider here therefore as invalid to criticise anything. He is a pop star and hatemonger from the left. Many of atheist philosophers, thinkers and serrious people are something completly different and their thought is interesting for me.

Thirdly, I don't understand this modern obsession with organised religion. Those alternative religions, faith are only succesfull because one can rework their teaching according to the personal conviction or to a fascion of time.

[RussiaPrussia]

i dont care if there is a god or not, i only care about this world

[Veneficus]

For me the argument from first cause is convincing. A system like our universe needs a external cause for exist and if this cause isn't something like god so it needs another cause, the reasoning continues until the first cause that exist for itself, that thing only can be described as a god. But I don't believe in something like christianity, and the neo-atheism is nothing more than another stupid political moviment that have faith in humanism.