Arguments against existence of God.

[Bucky Ball]

So what it's immaterial

Bingo! It's not a determining factor.  They could all be chickens, and it wouldn't hold any relevance because the study of cosmology isn't bound by their religion (or being a farm animal), and neither are their findings.  Atheism is an opinion and a religion, nothing more.  I can believe its constructs for whatever reason I choose and call myself an "atheist" or not believe them at all, and still be considered an "atheist." At the end of the day, it's just an opinion about "god(s) vs no god."

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.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Bingo! It's not a determining factor.  They could all be chickens, and it wouldn't hold any relevance because the study of cosmology isn't bound by their religion (or being a farm animal), and neither are their findings.  Atheism is an opinion and a religion, nothing more.  I can believe its constructs for whatever reason I choose and call myself an "atheist" or not believe them at all, and still be considered an "atheist." At the end of the day, it's just an opinion about "god(s) vs no god."

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.

[unfogged]

The "cause" of the big bang is unknown, and there may be none.  You can't extrapolate the laws from within this universe and apply them to something that is completely undefined.

I agree with your last sentence completely.

As for the cause of the big bang or any other model that attempts to explain how the universe began (like Vilenkin's model), there has to be a cause logically.

This is where you have to accept the limitations of theoretical physics and enter the realm of logic and philosophy.

Every effect has a cause. Simple as that.

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.

[Cherub786]

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.

[Simon Moon]

So what it's immaterial

Bingo! It's not a determining factor.  They could all be chickens, and it wouldn't hold any relevance because the study of cosmology isn't bound by their religion (or being a farm animal), and neither are their findings.  Atheism is an opinion and a religion, nothing more.

How can, not being convinced of unsupported theistic assertions, be a religion?

I can believe its constructs for whatever reason I choose and call myself an "atheist" or not believe them at all, and still be considered an "atheist." At the end of the day, it's just an opinion about "god(s) vs no god."

No, it's an opinion concerning the case FOR the existence of gods made by theists, not meeting its burden of proof.

Atheism is not necessarily the claim (or even the opinion) that gods do not exist. It is the position of not being convinced that gods exist. SOME atheists may go a step further and claim that no gods exist, but that is not requirement to hold the atheist position.

[unfogged]

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.

That's simply wrong. The logic you are trying to apply is based on how reality operates in our experience. There is no purely logical requirement for causation.

Until you have an example of something that is "beyond the universe" you have no idea what logic would apply there.

[Jehanne]

Most cosmologists are atheist:

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

So what it's immaterial

It makes your appeal to the supposed "majority opinion" contradictory.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Ya probably have to start with actual evidence is well.   It's not exactly clear what we would mean by a notion of logic, itself...without some reference to evidence.  We come up with these rules based upon how things seem to be, or seem not to be.... seem to be in reference to what?  Perhaps some amount of latent empiricism in philosophy itself.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Bingo! It's not a determining factor.  They could all be chickens, and it wouldn't hold any relevance because the study of cosmology isn't bound by their religion (or being a farm animal), and neither are their findings.  Atheism is an opinion and a religion, nothing more.

How can, not being convinced of unsupported theistic assertions, be a religion?

I can believe its constructs for whatever reason I choose and call myself an "atheist" or not believe them at all, and still be considered an "atheist." At the end of the day, it's just an opinion about "god(s) vs no god."

No, it's an opinion concerning the case FOR the existence of gods made by theists, not meeting its burden of proof.

Atheism is not necessarily the claim (or even the opinion) that gods do not exist. It is the position of not being convinced that gods exist. SOME atheists may go a step further and claim that no gods exist, but that is not requirement to hold the atheist position.

Views on assertions by theists isn't a requirement to be an atheist.  If no theists existed on the planet earth, you could still be an atheist.  If you never heard of any God or gods as a possibility, you could still be an atheist. There is no prerequisite that requires any form of evidence for anything that is a prerequisite to adhering to atheism.  There is no requirement besides a person saying that's what they choose to believe.  They can believe it based on what they believe to be evidence, or simply choose to believe it due to apathy. No matter how, it's still atheism.

Of course now many atheists have their own church, their own set of rules and guidelines, and what not.  Gatherings, hymns, offerings, tax exemptions, and religious rights.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Go go gadget atheist mega church...

[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.