You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.

I would like to first thank Richard Dawkins for his enlightening book "The God Delusion"

             Many people still consider human life to be governed  by a superior entity which punishes human deeds based on the sins and crimes that are committed during the period of ones lifetime.The "R" word standing for religion is a word never uttered by politicians.Such is the power of religion.Because without religion there would be no partition in India,no 26/11 attacks,no twin tower attack in the United States,no terrorism, no  disputes between the Israelites and Palastaenians.the list would continue on and on.But most theists would get away by explaining this to be a"perversity" of religion.But how can religion without any evidence lacking any rational justification, have a perversity?One can say that you have scriptures and holy books as evidence of a religion.But such a person fails to understand that even such literary works were written by another human with ideas that favoured his period of time and which helped to explain some of the phenomena unexplainable at that time.For example the eclipses were unexplainable at that period of time. The Greeks explained the eclipses with the help of Greek gods like Apollo ,Helios etc. The early Chinese put forth dragons as a cause for rising of the sun and other natural  phenomena unexplained at that time.By bringing in an element of God they were explaining these natural events without any rational justification.They weren't willing to admit that they werent aware of the true reason for these events.The element "God"filled the spaces in the knowledge of the early human.Now we know the true cause for each of these incidents.Even if we consider these holy books to be written by a a holy immortal God, books like the Holy Bible have underwent several changes over the centuries because as time changes different ideas dominate in favour of the necessities of the men during that period,and these must have slowly crept into the texts.It is somewhat similiar to "The Great Vowel Shift" that took place giving rise to languages in different accents in Europe.Then how can people have complete faith in such texts?Moreover the thought that a literary text should be written by an immortal all powerful person who has his hands full of cosmological affairs should be bothered about our petty human affairs is a funny thing in itself

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason

Stephen Roberts

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours

Religious ideas are just like genes in a gene pool.Over time the most useful gene which gives a survival advantage  dominates in that environment  for a particular organism.Similiarly religious ideas vary over time and their use

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer

"Superior technology is no less than magic" 

           "Unquestioned faith is a virtue"

But my question is who would you give the credit for:The theist with the unwavering unquestioned belief who will say the same answer at any time without thought or question

 or the scientist who works nights and nights to come up with a logical explanation with evidence about the matter of concern.People consider science to prove religion.But that is not possible .Facts of science directly go against matters of religion.They can never coexist.Religion is a study of creationism .In Christianiaty God said "let there be light" and the world was born.The amoebae,the birds,the trees ,the animals were created by god individually and all the living conditions on this planet were made favourable for us by God.But science is the study of evolution.Darwin turned the tables on religion.Evolution refers to the amoeba becoming a sponge in the sea which then becomes an aquatic plant which then becomes an aquatic animal,amphibian,terrestrial animal,birds,and then mammals.It is the monkey which becomes a human hence a human cannot be created individually.According to Christianity,the Earth is around 10000 years old. and this directly goes against the facts of science which suggest that the earth is 4.54 billion years old.There is a lot of difference.It is like suggesting that the length of India on a one dimensional scale from north to south is just an inch.Moreover we have evidence for such facts of science,we can time date fossils to arrive at the precise time the organism existed.But in religion it isjust a matter of belief.A standard argument by creationists would be that we have perfect organs:eyes for eyesight,hands for doing work and so on.This degree of perfection would be possible only when there is a superior entity to organise the cells into tissues,tissues to organs to form a body with perfection.This is called argument for existence of god through design.But this hides a major fallacy.Our hand,eyes and other organs have climbed up "Mount Improbable" as scientists call it referring to increasing degree of perfection of each of our organs in different species which have evolved into one another .For example taking the example of wings on birds. The members of the Dromaesaur family(dinosaurs) used their wings for the sake of insulation,and the penguin is also another such example.But with evolution the wings become larger and more than for the purpose of insulation, they began to be used for flight.With evolution organs become useful for other functions as well.The wings will surely slowly develop over a period of several million years into the long and broad wings that birds have today.But        we must understand that  even if the wings become slightly larger and wider over a small period of time it can make a difference between the death and life of the bird in question.Even a small 1% increase in surface area of the wing can drastically increase drag(air resistance).Hence we can understand that our organs have evolved from degrees of imperfection to a degree of perfection for optimum use of that organ.

Richard Lederer (Anguished English)

There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.

                                                           "  You keep believing, I'll keep evolving"

There are two ways to live life:

One as though everything is a miracle 

Or as though nothing is a miracle.

-Sir Isaac Newton 

In a village the torch is the teacher and the extinguisher is the clergyman.

-Oscar Wilde

Thomas Aquina's Arguments for the existence of God

• The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
• The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
  • The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause. Its proponents are mainly Christians.
• The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
• The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
• The argument from degree, a version of the transcendental argument posited by Aquinas, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree in order for such properties to be coherent.

I have already explained about the theory of intelligent design.Intelligent design or creationism and evolution are polar opposites of each other.Evolution has substantial proof  while the theory of intelligent design is supported only by the "Holy Books" which cannot be directly be considered as "evidence".

 The basic assumption that theists make is that  god is the highest degree of perfection. Only after this assumption  does the argument from degree come into play.Because only if god is the highest degree of perfection can he be the "intelligent designer".Moreover The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.This is similiar to the ideology of a spear making a spearsman.

The teleological argument is the one that interests me the most. It suggests an infinite regress iie.the cause of the cause of the cause and so on.Theists label the terminator of such a sequence to be god.But there are several ways to counter debate this argument.

1.Sometimes there is a terminator.For example dividing a a kilogram of gold into half repeatedly,means that even a nugget of gold in the end will have to be divided into two again.But we must uderstand that at one stage only the gold atom will be left behind and on splitting the gold atom,what is left behind is no longer gold.This in itself is a terminator.

2.If there is an unending regress and if it is assumed that the terminator is God .Then it even gives rise to a more disturbing question.I feel that this would give rise to another regree starting from"Who created the creator?".It is indeed really simple for a theist to end the regress where he wants it to.

Other arguments are based on such assumptions.But still there is the question of the origin of life.This is another gap in our knowledge like that of the early humans waiting to be filled by science.But however scientists are beginning to already propose theories on the case.The theory is that the number of galaxies in the universe are uncountable roughly the  number of stars in the sky times the number of dust particles on Earth.And it is ever expanding.Then the number of planets must be even larger.A major percentage of planets do not have any conditions suitable for life.But a small percentage must have some conditions suitable for life but not all conditions are present.Hence in such a case still no life can exist.Then an even smaller almost negligible percentage of planets may have all conditions necessary for life giving rise to the "Goldilocks Zone"  suitable for creation of life through coincidence.But remember that for such a huge uncountable number of planets , this negligible percentage may give still a considerable number.Earth happens to be one such planet and we know this because you and me are here know.Although this is still a hypothesis,i think it is a valid argument.But the question of how the first protein or amino acid came about is another question entirely.But a similiar approach can be taken to explain this as well.I am confident that science will soon fill this gap as will.

Some arguments are as follows:

• Argument from incomplete devastation:A plane crashes and only a child survives with third degree burns.Hence God exists.

• Argument by belief in belief: I believe.I believe.I believe..I believe I believe  I believe  I believe ,I do,I do.......
• Argument by favoured case: Person X died an atheist.So God exists.
• Argument By personal experience: God helped me take the right decision.He talked with me personally in my head and adviced to take the particular decision in existence

The argument by personal experience interests me a lot.Once in my house when i was asleep I thought i heard some noises.I woke up and searched for the source of the sound at 2:00p.m.I first thought they were voices whispering in my head.I soon found out that it was the wind whistling through the keyhole on the door.Our brain takes the reports from our 5 senses and constructs a 3-D model.But sometimes our brain misinterprets the information and constructs faces or the sensation of another person because in our daily life our interaction is mosly with human beings.The same can be said for dreams."The voices whispering in the head" is a common phenomena in small children but as they grow up it tends to die away.But I think sometimes it doesn't.

I rather think it is need based.Especially,lonely old people require some strength to face a situation.Hence they tend to imagine it in the form of god.

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one

Finally I would like to comment on whether people would still remain moral if there was no religion.From transcendal argument which suggests that morality is a byproduct of religion.But I feel that such moral policing is not required.The argument that bad people do bad things ,and hence they are atheists is indeed comical.It is not  necessary that a God must be present with us for us to be good.According to the transcendal argument ,atheists are supposed to have no moral sense.But all these arguments aside ,I feel that theist or atheist they will be ready to save a child.Because a sense to do good does not come from religion,it is in fact a byproduct of humanity.It has nothing to do with belief.There will be good with or without God.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Albert Einstein

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death

"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend"

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish

 I would like to conclude saying that supernatural  religion is indeed a falsehood.But that does not mean one should not follow his culture.Culture and religion are oft interchanged words.For example in my culture ,we recite various hymns and it helps to improve vocal strength and radiates positive energy.The pradakshanam in a temple is a form of exercise.There are many good things in one's culture.But this must not become an argument for supernatural religion. 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?

"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you."