As an Atheist I usually argue against the idea that being Atheist is "close-minded" or "arrogant."

Whenever someone tries to convince me that God exists, that's when I'll argue against their God. I don't find myself to be a New Atheist, though, because I really don't care that much that religion and belief exists. I'm more on the defensive. Maybe the non-aggression principle applied to ideology.

Reason is automatic. It's how we think.

One doesn't need faith to merely think. One needs faith to accept an ideal without evidence.

How one reasons can be different from the others. For example: a Christian can reason that evidence is not necessary in order to hold a belief, therefore having faith-based reasoning. An Atheist, on the other hand, finds that unless evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe in an ideal, therefore evidence-based reasoning.

Don't be a big baby, you said yourself that you it was incoherent. i was agreeing.

This is debate, not a relationship.

I don't really know what you were disputing, and yes, it's pretty incoherent.

True, I feel, however, that just because one pretends to believe in something for the sake of survival doesn't mean our actual beliefs have changed.

In the USSR, it was prohibited to worship Christ, but people did it anyway. There were underground churches.

Agnosticism is more of a philosophy than a belief system, in my experience.

If I really got into the nitty gritty, it's logical to be Agnostic because Agnostics comply with Quantum Mechanics (nothing can be certain).

But do I believe in God, spirits or the afterlife? No. So I am an Atheist.

I do apologize, Secular Humanism is a philosophy/religion, Secular Progressives are just usually Secular Humanists.

But yeah, those who think that bigger government is actually necessary and also happen to believe that religion should be completely out of government.

I'm sure that the Secular Humanists are already on their way to trying to spread their ideals unto others (including Atheism). This is why they want a secular government to control education. This is why they want a secular government to control everything (and are opposed to privatization). The belief behind Secular Humanism is that:

1. Government must have power over the evil men (because evil, for some reason, still exists)

2. Government must be "secular" (aka, atheist).

This, of course, means that atheism must be the standard.

But do not worry, my friends. There is another branch of Atheism that is growing. It is quite different from Secular Humanists. They are still secular, but believe that most things should be left to the people. If you believe in shit like Jesus, you will have so many opportunities to continue that belief without fear of breaking some law or code.

Classical Liberals, Libertarians, Individualists and Objectivists are concerned with Post-Theistic ideals (no longer worrying about the fact that Theism exist).

I don't believe in God, but I use it all the time.

With my use of the word, it can make some people assume that I am a theist.

But, in other cases, me simply defending a religion (when it's attacked with baseless arguments) makes people assume that I'm a theist.

So if you use the word God WITHOUT trying to confuse someone, people will usually misunderstand you because they're people with an agenda.

There are no provable truths or myths.

I will say, however, that I believe that most things that people have accepted are only accepted because it's easier to live by certain codes than to try and liberate your mind as much as possible. To be truly free is scary for most people (which is why Conservatives and Liberals exist, in the first place).

It's against God in the eyes of many religious people.

Unfortunately, this can not be said for what God is thought to be by the non-religious or just other types of religious people.

As stated, while you can use evil as an example as to why MAYBE God is not omni-all-that-shit, it is not "a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".

The debate topic also mentioned secular ethics.

My stance stands. While it's possible that MAYBE someone has a point when pointing out all the omnis and if they can be true as characteristics of God, it is not a "coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".

Because you're claiming that if God exists, he would HAVE TO BE a merciful, personal, caring God and therefore, an argument like "evil coexists with God" is merely an elementary tactic for Atheists who are afraid of reasoning.

It's actually a lot more simple than some will try to make it.

As stated, I am talking about "the existence of God(s)".

The debate description merely gets specific ON SOME POINTS that will be brought up during debate.

Even so, it all doesn't matter. Unless you understand a religion up to a point where others will believe that YOU believe in it (when describing it), you will not be able to debunk a religion.

I don't mind using the argument of "evil existing" to argue against the validity of a Christian or Islamic God. At the same time, arguing against an entire religion requires much more than just "why is there evil?" many priests are taught from the beginning to answer with intellectually dishonest bullshit, but at the same time, it's bullshit that is almost impossible to argue against with mere "why does evil exist" rational. you need to understand a religion and understand WHY faith is evident in order to be able to start your argument against it all. You have to know so much about it that if you were explaining it to someone, they would at first think that you are a believer.

But for the basic idea of God or a deity, saying that "a deity doesn't exist because evil exists" is a fallacy. Nothing to it.

The question is "Is the problem of Evil a coherent argument against the existence of God(s)".

This does not say anything about a merciful or caring God. Merely the existence of a deity.

To me, it would be a good thing if religions admitted that they have no idea on what God is thinking.

That is not the case, however. In pure logic, the assumption that God exists would be followed by the fact that "if God exists, we have no idea on what he's thinking".

The religious make their own rules, and if we're debating religion itself it would apply more to the tactics of God.

But to say "God doesn't exist because evil things happen" or "Even if God does exist, he doesn't care about us because evil things happen" is like saying "I know what God's intentions would be if he existed".

It's intellectually dishonest.

There are more logical reasons for not believing in God. Because bad things happen to good people is not one of them.

In a purely logical debate, it's rubbish to try to say "why would God allow evil to happen?"

First of all, ya morons, if we were debating on God's existence, we would have to accept that if he did exist, we would NOT understand his true intentions. We're human beings that are limited by the physical realm. God is supposed to be supernatural and powerful and shit. So saying "if God does exist, he's an asshole for letting evil happen" is admitting that you're an ignorant fool who isn't serious about reasoning.

The same goes for "what created God" arguments.

I hate stupid debate tactics by the people who are supposed to be the smarter ones.