Arguments for and against God's existence.  I'd like the negative position to take on an equal burden of proof and provide arguments against God's existence, e.g. the problem of suffering, divine hiddenness, etc.

Those who are openly critical of specific practices, of a specific religious sect, as a member of that sect, are the most potent activists. Non-members, who think their criticism from outside will be well understood, are deluding themselves. Then we have these idiots who think that being against religion or religious groups in general is somehow an intelligent and logically rational position. "Pointing the finger away from oneself is the coward's favorite form of activism" ~atypican  

In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).[1][2] Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely. Attempts to resolve the question under these contexts have historically been one of the prime concerns of theodicy. Some responses include the arguments that true free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, that humans cannot understand God, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth or evil is the consequence of a fallen world. There are also many discussions of "evil" and associated "problems" in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[3][4][5] and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics.[6][7] But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2]

Doing away with religion is an illogical and unrealistic ideal

"Technically atheists just lack a belief in god, they don't necessarily believe in the non-existence of god."  Qoute from a debate here.   The trouble is that atheist don't just use this meaning, they act upon it. They attack God and religion, making atheism a religion. They don't lack a belief, they just have a different one.

To those the believe that is a soul, or perhaps some other non-corporeal aspect of our lives, why do you believe this? What is your evidence or logic behind such a belief?

Either try to come up with your own, post someone else's, or your favorite dictionary's, then upvote the best one(s) you see posted so far... Definitions voted highest will be edited into this debate description.   Religion: 1) X) a: The human habit of forming ideological alliances with one another, regarding issues commonly accepted as being of highest importance. b: An institution,organization, or group based on such alliances 2) pending 3) pending

The fact that one can quite literally have faith in anything is a testament to it's sheer unreliability. We can have faith in both the true and untrue. We can have faith in the possible and impossible. For things we know to be true we can empirically prove they are true, and thus there is no need to hold them on faith. Faith seems to be reserved for that which not only hasn't been proven but things which are inherently unprovable. If we hold good reason to believe a truth then there will be evidence to supports it's truth. Rather faith is a good indicator of things in which we specifically don't have good reason to believe. I would go so far as to say that faith actually is reliable-- reliable in detecting BS in the sense that if something is believed on faith then it is most probably BS.

Archeological evidence combined with research on cultures from around the globe shows a general trend that can be traced by time, technology, and size of population. It is likely that the earliest human societies had no gods and were purely animist (believing everything had a persona or magical powers). With a few exceptions, animism today tends to be found primarily in small, isolated societies with very low technology. Polytheism seems to have been almost universal among growing civilizations around the world until the Abrahamic religions slowly began overtaking the old ways in popularity. Monotheism has been the leader for some time now, and monotheistic societies tended to be more technologically sophisticated than their polytheistic neighbors for centuries. Now atheism is gradually gaining in popularity globally, and we are now more populous and more technologically advanced than we have ever been. Is all of this a coincidence, or has the human spiritual condition gradully evolved over time and in response to our knowledge of the world around us and increasing size of population? Do the number of supernatural entities we believe in (everything being supernatural, to everything being controlled by a finite pantheon, to everything being controlled by one god, to none) instinctively decrease as our understanding of science increases and our globalism increases? Will there come a time when the majority of the world is atheist? Or is there some better explanation for the spiritual trends seen in history?

Would you still consider yourself an atheist if we were to redefine what it means to be God? For example: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  God is perceived to have magical like powers. Atheism is solidly based on logic.  Logic states that there's no such things as magic and that, statistically, there are other civilizations (very different from us) living on other planets (some of which may be more technologically advanced than us). What if we are the product of one of those advanced civilizations?  Would that make them Gods to us?  Especially if they could wipe us off the face of the planet in a blink of an eye?  Would you call them God just so that they wouldn't kill us? Most living things strive for self survival and species survival (maybe not all species in that order, but close enough).  Maybe it's not logical for an individual or a species to strive for survival (i.e., the human race ;) but for arguments sake, I'll say it is logical to pursue survival.  Therefore, if an advanced civilization told us to worship it or risk extinction, it would make sense for us to comply. So..., faced with a dilema where an advanced species told us it created us (regardless of whether it was true or not) and that we should thus worship it or perish, which would you chose?  Would you still say, "I am an atheist, hear me roar!  There is no God.  Therefore you are not God and thus not worthy of my worship.  Besides..., I have better things to do..., like posting something on CD ;)" or would you bend your knee, bow and say, "Yes my lord and master.  Glory be onto you.  Praise thee for thou are a true, just, and merciful ruler (even if you would use your power to destroy us for disagreeing with you ;)." I would probably do the later but that's because I'm agnostic.  So are most atheists true atheists or closet agnostics?  Just asking ;)  

Anyone know who has made this point before?

Regardless of whether they fancy themselves religious or secular, people in general cetainly are inclined to point the finger at others as opposed to themselves. Each group considers the other to be more susceptible to profound folly, while (mistakenly imo) thinking themselves somehow immune. Everyone prides themselves in their ability to criticize others, while the tradition of self-criticism and collective self-criticism are woefully neglected. That's one of the things I like about Jesus. He was openly critical of the very tradition he was part of. I'm Christian in that sense at least.

1. The term god refers to a worshiped being2. A being that does not exist cannot be worshiped3. Gods exist as long as worship exists       --Old debate description is below-- God is a title/label for a being or group of beings that are unwaveringly trusted. (I would say in many cases excessively trusted) Only beings who communicate can be trusted. A non existent being cannot communicate.   The initially posted debate description was edited as follows : 1. "metaphor" was changed to "Title/Label" 2. "most" was changed to "unwaveringly"

Is there a myth that is universal enough that everyone remains susceptible to it? Something like: "Because of my superior understanding, I no longer need to be concerned about the problems that beset only those of inferior understanding"      

The word god is a term that gets used quite a bit in certain circles. Is god a word whose meaning is so poorly defined as to be practically useless, or can you use the word god with good confidence that most everyone will understand what you mean ?

 

IF there is a God who is (1) wise and (2) good and (3) merciful, then those who try to do good will not be punished for their beliefs alone -- no matter what they do or do not believe.

I am inclined to think that imagining an afterlife in one sort or another can be a great source of hope. On the other hand I think people who really do think that they are in essence immortal can't be trusted to hold life as sacred.