>>49
the question isn't whether or not the universe is a result of an initial stimulus, because it most likely was (the big bag), the question is whether or not that initial stimulus was a sentient omnipotent being (god).
in response to your example, first, look at the second sentence again because you used a double negative and i'm not sure if you ended up where you wanted to be. second, the analogy doesn't really work because with math you work with concrete finite numbers, for the most part, than can be critiqued and shown as a proof and so on. the biggest problem with god is that it's the biggest open ended thing to work with, EVER. any logic or method you try to put to it can easily be slapped down using an excuse like miracles or the idea that god doesn't need to follow his own rules of the universe. you might as well say there's an immortal time traveling magician that goes around doing stuff to the universe that shouldn't happen. if you try to prove he doesn't exist because the things he does doesn't fit the laws of observable nature, then you chalk it up to his magic wand and leave it at that. it becomes a childish game of "well, god can't exist because of /this/. we've tested it and everything and it comes out wrong, so god can't possibly work if this is wrong." to which the response is "yeah, well, it's god we're talking about. he can do ANYTHING. so try try again. neener neener neener". How can you even begin to prove god DOESN'T exist when you're dealing with a being that can be anywhere, knows everything, and has the capability of making 2+2=fish?
>>51
"They ought to come up with a new word."
better yet, people need to stop thinking of 'atheist' as 'anti-religious'. no need to find a new word to appease the people who misunderstand it.
>>49