To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.

Yes, I consider myself an atheist but I would never make the claim that I KNOW there is no God. I simply don't know but I am trying to make an educated guess. I always say I would rather listen to some scientist who has years and years of schooling under his belt than listen to some preacher who claims he has some "personal relationship" with the God who created the universe. Most scientists are atheists but they don't really know, for certain, how we got here. Evolution has some answers but I think we are all too stupid to understand most of this stuff.

Yes indeed. If they worship the devil in some form or another then they are by implication not atheists, as the devil does not exist out of context of God. So they would have to resolve the problem of existence in a different way to an atheist.

You miss the point entirely. The question of atheism has been raised by someone else. Reading other threads in here, it is clear that when something is left undefined, all sorts of irrelevant things rise up. Also some people make assumptions about the people they are talking to, based on the words they use. I think this could be a very valid discussion if it were better defined.

I'm an atheist and I don't claim to know that with any certainty.

I only know that all current explanations of any god(s) are utterly worthless. And I see no reason to presume the need of something described as god for me to exist. But again I don't know for certain.

I can't see why religious people feel the need to answer those questions solely with faith and not a single shred of physical evidence. Aren't you just revering a god of gaps?

The likely counter for this argument is that assuming a God is simply "moving the goalposts" back and begs asking ok then how did God come about?

The answer is of course, the place outside of this universe where God would reside (multiverse, God's dimension, etc) has no issues logically with something coming from nothing or something beyond around for eternity. This is less a proof for God and more a proof for something existing outside of this universe.

In any case God is not mathematically or scientifically provable at this time by design. Because we don't have enough empirical information to say for sure, you are "free" to "hope" for either a universe created by God (in which you will have eternal life) or one where you were born a random accident with an infinitesimally small lifespan with little chance to impact the universe around you to any discernible degree. I hope/believe/have faith in for the former. But I am likely an optimist in a atheist eyes, and fittingly they seem rather more pessimistic to me.

So how do you assume people got here? How do you come to your conclusions? And, more importantly, why do you assume you are correct?

I think the best terms are Prime Mover and Supreme Creator.
If someone has no belief in such a conceptual entity then one is well and truly an atheist.

"FAITH is the belief in something you know aint true." Mark Twain

But I think you are missing the point as well. First off, if NO ONE really knows how we got here, and no one does, then it doesn't really matter what label a person places on themselves. I, for instance, say I am an atheist because I don't believe in any Gods. But, I am not so cocky as to say I know for certain because humans are basically stupid, and that includes me.

No one knows, that is the bottom line. We don't know if the Big Bang theory is correct, partially correct or absolutely wrong. So, in the end, if I give myself the label of atheist, I am probably lying to myself, in a way. I don't really know. Maybe the Muslim God is the one true God. Maybe God is in everyone. Maybe this life is nothing but a dream. No one knows.

How about you defining what this higher power is?

I can't argue against something as vague as that. As long as your deity (or deities) have no supposed influence over the universe then it is impossible to argue against it (hence I can't really argue against most non-theistic deists).

At the same time though such a deity would be utterly pointless to revere IMHO.

I do not assume, ultimately I do not know, but I have an image that suits me. Humans exist because the universe has inexorably followed the rules, governing the interaction of matter, that were imbued into the universe at the moment of creation. I assume I am correct because this model fits comfortably with what I have learned about physics, biology, chemistry and astrophysics.

That's not evidence for even a monotheistic description of God. Let alone any specific one such as God described in the Bible or Allah in the Qu'ran.

If your argumentation can be used to provide "evidence" for the existence of a pantheon of gods (such as Hinduism or the Roman pantheon) then it is utterly pointless.

I think the questions are only difficult ones because we have to consider them within our limited human perspective. Human parameters insist that everything must have a beginning and an end, because that is our experience of reality.
When we step outside of our physical reality (by having a near-death experience for instance), we realise that space and time are just illusions. The source of all that is, always has always will exist in the eternal instant. No beginning and no end.

God is not made of matter or energy.
He is SPIRIT, and he is OUTSIDE of time.
He created matter and energy and time, instantly
at the moment of creation.

The physical universe exists WITHIN God.
God pervades His creation, and there is no place
or time in the physical universe where He is NOT.

But, God IS.
He told Moses to tell the pharaoh,
tell them "I AM" sent you.
He exists always, ever in the present.
All of time is unfolded before Him.
He knows how it started, and how it all will end,
which He has revealed to men, so that they
would know that He is who He says He is.

You are still missing the point. Someone else (not me) raised a question with an ill defined term. Something they need to rectify, because this thread and others like it are for discussing peoples perceptions of reality and hopefully learning from.

Ultimately all imaginings about the cosmos, are just that, imaginings. To conceive of ideas so broad and vast, we build an image in our minds eye. Each image is personal and exists only in the mind of the holder. There are groups of people who hold similar imaginings, because they like to rely on potted answers to questions too big for their processing capacity. Every idea, like "big-bang" was conceived in someone else' mind and then they attempt to give clothes to the idea with mathematical formulae, so that they can place a similar image in the mind of another.

So that is what is called making an educated guess. But what LABEL to you place on yourself? Do you call yourself an agnostic because, ultimately, you do not know? I guess we humans must always add our labels to ourselves and to others. In this thread, the question is posed to atheists and agnostics, which are really two different types of belief systems.

You sound like you could be a type of creationist? If that is true, you should have tons of questions you should be asking yourself. And if you studied subjects like physics, biology, chemistry and astrophysics, I would assume that not many of your classmates are creationists? Maybe you aren't either, but that is why we need to see that label.

So pantheists are atheists? What about certain polytheistic beliefs that claim there are several "creators" working together that created reality?

Agnostics cannot claim that Christianity is bullshit, Scientology is bullshit or that Mormonism is bullshit.

Saying one does not know for certain how we got here does not make that person an agnostic.

An agnostic believes he cannot judge whether ANY supernatural claims are true or not, regardless of how silly the claim is.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

BUT...maybe I am misunderstanding...but what does the LABEL have to do with it? There are millions of Christians out there, for instance, and every single one of them has a different idea about who God is. The fact is, most people model their idea of God on their own personality. That is why their God always thinks like they do, always likes and hates the same things. In the end, God is just an extension of their ego. Maybe that doesn't sound kind, but I honestly believe it is true. It has to be.

I noticed that you didn't give yourself a label? WHy not? Because I think you are confusing labels with ideas. No one knows how we got here. What does it matter if someone calls themselves an atheist or an agnostic? If they don't honestly know, then we are just throwing ideas around. And each and every person will believe something a little bit different than the next person. There are big ideas, like the Big Bang theory, but inside that big idea are tons of people who have little ideas that may or may not be exactly what the orginal people who made up the Big Bang theory would desire them to have. In the end, this is just a discussion between people who have many different ideas about how we came to be. Labels shouldn't be important.

No it's not useless it simply isn't as simplistically definitive as you would like (a far to common fallacy of the empirically minded who like throw Occam at ever complex argument). To simply say it doesn't preclude the existence of other Gods in other religions so therefore it bunk, is completely unlogically dismissive of what it does say. I quite well pointed out that I thought the idea of God was completely unprovable.

But that is different then saying there isn't evidence. I see far too many people claim "there is not one shred of evidence supporting the claim of God". It's not true. There is plenty of evidence. Plenty of historical evidence for most of the claims the bible makes. Can a reasonable argument be made for alternative explanations in most cases? Sure. But that by itself isn't falsification which is far too often the assumption.

Then what do you call a person who thinks that Christianity, Scientology and Mormonism, etc., is bullshit but doesn't know how exactly we got here? Is there a name for such a being? An atheist is a person who knows for certain that there is no God. A Mormon, for instance, knows for certain that when they put their trust in Joseph Smith they are believing truth. A Christian knows for certain that the only way to heaven is through Jesus. So what is the person called who thinks all religions are basically bullshit but who isn't a complete atheist either.

Uhm?

Please show 1 contemporary non-Biblical piece of evidence or reference even of any supernatural occurrence that is described in the Bible.

At this point in human evolution, entropy is normal in DNA sequencing and often studied. However, chaos theory does not account for the creation of DNA (up to now).

To date, only Earth has life. Given the expanse of the universe, I have a real difficult time seeing life and earth as unique, but I am open to that possibility.

On a spiritual level, how cool is it that every living organism has it's own set of assembly instructions?

Oh please, get your head out of the sand. You say there is plenty of historical evidence for claims in the Bible? No, there isn't. Take, for instance, the central figure, Jesus. There is absolutely no evidence he ever existed. There is MUCH evidence that his life was plagarized from other pagan religions. He used to be known as the "Sun" God but they changed that to the "Son" God.

Let's be honest. Miracles, such as being born of a virgin and being raised from the dead, are MYTHS. Plain and simple, they did not happen. You won't find the story of Jesus in secular history books because he didn't exist. You won't find writings about him at the time he supposedly existed because everyone (outside of the Bible, that is) that wrote about him wrote what they did years AFTER he supposedly walked the earth. No one knows when he was born so the pagan winter solstice date was used. No one knows when he died so they chose another pagan astrological date to celebrate that. Let's face it. There are PLENTY of unverified stories in the Bible. The Bible is basically a book of myths.

FAITH is the opposite of doubt.

As an agnostic I do not know how 'it' all began and as far as I can tell no one else does either.

I feel no need to make up stories to explain things I don't understand. I put those questions aside until new evidence is presented.

Maybe there is a supreme being, maybe not.

Not knowing doesn't bother me in the least.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to know but I understand that I may never know, what a great puzzle!

One final note OP: Lack of evidence is NOT proof of anything but a lack of evidence.

I do not know how to label myself. Agnostic I suppose because I admit the limits of my capacity to comprehend the grand scale of creation. I like to hypothesize a Supreme Creator, and I also see a real world out there that can be understood and in which all things fit together. So if an idea about God fits in easily with observable reality, there is no reason to reject it. The more mental gymnastics you have to do, the less likely an idea is to be real.

i think OP is confusing THEORIES with FACT

why is it so crucial to you that atheists believe in god?

does this threaten you?

atheists do not believe in god because it makes sense to them.

evolutionists believe in evolution because it seems a logical answer

creationists believe in genesisis because that's what rocks their world

i don't expect anyone to share my beliefs, in fact, i welcome the differences

please have your ego pressure checked.

It seems some of you choose not to believe in God (or Gods) simply on the basis of proof or evidence of his existence. There is no proof that he does exist and there is no proof that he does not exist. Isn't it part of the human psyche to believe in SOMETHING? I think we all need to believe in something or else there is a great emptiness within us. I argue that humans NEED to believe in something. It makes us who we are. Perhaps when a person does not believe in something it is what drives them to do horrible acts.