Arguments against existence of God.

[Bucky Ball]

So you agree that you can't apply the laws that exist within the universe but then you go ahead and apply them anyway.  Logic and philosophy are not separate from the laws of physics when you are talking about what is

"Every effect has a cause" and "there has to be a cause logically" are only arguable WITHIN this universe at maybe even then only at the macroscopic level; what you or I may consider "logical" may simply not apply to the creation of universes.

The realm of logic and philosophy is irrelevant where the same logic may not hold and even if it did, it will only get you to possibilities.  You still need actual evidence before a conclusion can be reached.

Logic and philosophy are separate from the laws of physics. The laws of physics are limited in scope and cannot be applied to what if anything exists beyond the universe, but logic and philosophy are broader in their scope and can be applied to anything.
Every effect having a cause is not a law of physics, it is derived from logic.

Nope. Totally false.
There are many logical systems. Here are twenty five of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S...rmal_logic
FIRST, you have to demonstrate and prove the system you are using, actually applies. You have no way of doing that with conditions that may or may not have applied to
what could be external to this universe.

Many logical systems, while being totally internally consistent, do not obtain in reality.
What appears to humans on the macro level to be logically intuitive, is not the way reality works, necessarily.

So no. Your "cause and effect" not only is not applicable, but we know there are examples where there is no cause ...
for example virtual particles and the random radioactive decay of atoms ... which is totally not predictable, and has no known cause.

---

You can't possibly be serious.
But thanks for disparaging religions.

Atheism is nothing but the ABSENCE of 1 thing.
A-theism. No theism. No theism.
It's nothing more than that.
Just like :
a-symmetry ... no symmetry, absence of symmetry
a-symptomatic ... no symptoms, absence of symptoms

Dismissing as preposterous the claims and notions of theists, is nothing more.
They do not merit consideration. At all. They're nothing more than the anachronistic meme's of long bygone eras.
That's hardly "religion" by any definition.

God isn't a requirement of "religion."  Many Chinese people don't believe in any god whatsoever, but manage to be religious people, who attribute various "supernatural" attributes to things like their ancestors, birds, dragons, and what not.  Other Chinese don't believe that at all and are still atheists.  Many work in factories making aluminum and other goods.  All atheists and no science necessary.  Atheism is not a prerequisite of science.  You could literally obliterate the notion of atheism from human existence and we would still have science.  That doesn't mean atheists can't be scientists, and many are.  But at the end of the day, most aren't and that's fine.  It doesn't make them dumb or irrelevant.  It just makes them opinionated and/or religious.

Nice try ... that's all irrelevant.
What they do or do not do in China is totally beside the point.
The point was whether atheism is a religion, not what constitutes other forms of religion.  
The point is, gods are a requirement of theism. When labeling someone an a-theist, it means they have no god. Nothing else.