You really need to read Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, because you evidently don't even know what the arguments are. The fact that this subject continues to be debated by supposedly thinking people is downright sad.
Since the big bang, evidence supports "no God", because the world began as an attack on God. The crucifixion was a genesis parody. Jesus
dawkings book is not needed to deal this the basic point. Atheism is not rational. They can not prove there is no Creator. Like I said you did not see scientists saying there is no life on other planets. --- Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week. In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote: The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3 Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment. Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4 http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm There are now numerous top scientists who concede there is evidence of design only fricken idiots do comprehend the fact the debate is real. I am not saying there is design only that there is evidence. I have cited numerous other scientists on other threads. Just do the search yourselves. Read about nobel prize winners and string theorists saying we either have trillions and trillions of parallel universes or we looked designed. These are quotes from atheists.
And more evidence from wikipedia. Now don't blame the messenger - examine the message. String theory predicts a large number of possible universes, called the backgrounds or vacua. The set of these universes or vacua is often called the "multiverse" or "anthropic landscape" or "string landscape". Leonard Susskind has argued that the existence of a large number of vacua puts the anthropic reasoning on firm ground; only universes with the remarkable properties sufficient to allow observers to exist are beheld while a possibly much larger set of universes without such properties go utterly unnoted. Nobel Prize-winning physicist and atheist Steven Weinberg[54], believes AP may be appropriated by cosmologists committed to nontheism; he refers to the Anthropic Principle as a "turning point" in modern science since, applied to the string landscape, it "may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator." ---- Try using your logic here stu... A nobel prize winner and noted atheist Stephen Weinberg states that string theory may be the turning point for non theists because they can use it to explain away the fine tuning (evidence of design). Nobel prize winners are telling you that but for the fact that string theory speculates there are almost infinite universes -- you have evidence of design. I will explain it - so that even you can get this stu. If you have one universe we have evidence of design because there is no way we are this tuned for life by chance. but if you have infinite deals from the deck of cards one of the universes will be tuned for life therefore you can not conclude our universe is evidence of design. If you do not understand this Stu - read the above. If you still do not get it read the quotes I provided by Susskind on other threads. if you do not get it then - put on your dunce cap.
Straw man fallacy. No atheist claims to be able to *prove* that God doesn't exist. They simply say there's no evidence to suggest God does exist. Much like there is no evidence to suggest that the Boogieman or Leprechauns exist. Do you believe in the Boogieman and Leprechauns?
that is the argument I just made. Do rational scientists say there is no other life in the universe? The problem is that atheists do say there is no God. here is the quote that started this discussion on this thread SW said : "In short, the point that we atheists are trying to make is this: There are no gods, devils, angels, ghosts, elves, fairies, or spirits. There is no supreme being who cares about sparrows or you. Jesus did not rise from death and is not going to come rescue us. Muhammad did not fly up to heaven on a winged horse and visit with god, and the angel Moroni did not translate golden tablets for Joseph Smith. No bush has ever burned without being consumed, the earth is 4+ billion years and man did not live with dinosaurs. And then STU lauded him. For that matter Carl Sagan said he knows there is no God. So your strawman has flesh.
By that logic: Do rational scientists say there is no other life in the universe? The problem is that most people say there is no Boogieman. No Leprechauns. Why not just admit that belief in god is purely a matter of blind faith. Most theologians and up at this position, after all.
Please note I added to my post. I admit that until recently belief in God is faith based. I was chastising people like STU who don't realize saying there is no God is also faith based.
Finally I would like to make the point. That we have a universe. Saying there may have been a creator is not the same as believing in unicorns. Is it really more likely the universe was created by chance? I would say that is an open question. summary 1. Atheism is the denial of God or the disbelief of God. many top dictionaries say it is the doctrine that there is no God Thus atheism is irrational and faith based. Agnosticism is intellectually respectable not atheism. 2. I had no problem saying belief in God is faith based. 3. Until recently, when noble scientists started discussing fine tuning. Now some top scientists state there is evidence of design. So belief is still faith based. But there is now some credible scientific arguments for design.