Is god real?

[The Rich Port]

Religion is but a pissing contest between close-minded intellectuals, and ignorant theists basing their knowledge on an unreliable source.

'Kay...

[Luciratus]

The first thing that need determined before you can answer the question "is god real?" is what god you're talking about. Zeus? The Christian God, and if so what version? A Deist God?

I'm going to answer the question posed while under the assumption that you mean to address the typical judeo-christian God which is described as a being of pure goodness that created everything in the universe and is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient.

This God does not and cannot exist. We know this for the same reason that we know that no where in all of the universe does a square circle exist. We can know it does not exist, even without having access to the entire universe, because we know that contradictions cannot exist. The above described God cannot exist because of the following contradictions:

1: Evil not come from something that is purely good, and so if all the universe came from God, so did the evil in the universe.

2: An omnipotent being cannot be omniscient. If God is omniscient then he must know what is going to happen tomorrow. If he knows what is going to happen tomorrow then he cannot change what is going to happen tomorrow. An omnipotent God, by definition, can change anything. Therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

3: An omnipotent being cannot be purely good or evil since purely good and evil beings cannot create their reverse aspects.

4: An eternally perfect being cannot have created the universe. If a being is perfect then it is complete and is in need of nothing and never makes anything unnecessary. Therefore a perfect and thus complete being would have no need to make the universe, nor would it do anything unnecessary like make universes that serve no purpose.

Therefore the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.

It is vaguely possible for much less specifically described "gods" to possibly exist, but without the absolute qualities described above it would more accurate to list them as highly advanced or powerful beings rather than being gods.

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about how reality works. First, you must rely on the fact that our current system is correct, which I believe it is. So, we shall rely on that system and think within those boundaries- which likewise might bend.

1. Many traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that evil was created as a test. However, it is also likely that evil arose through a deity's maintanence of free will. You cannot judge any god based on your own flawed human morality, can you? The evil may have been permitted by a god, but it was not forced upon us by one. Natural processes and our own decisions bring evil on us, not a deity's invisible hand or tentacle.

2. I would assert that a deity can be both omnipotent and omniscient. If a thing is omnipotent wouldn't it be able to control the outcome of any give scenario and thus know how it would conclude? For example, a god is playing chess. It knows every move you will make and has the ability to win the game even if you play better than it. Thus, it knows both the outcome and controls the outcome. From a theistic point of view, a deity knows how an individual will behave due to its nature and permits free choice to be exhibited, but is omnipotent in that it can interfere if it wants to.

3. You are assuming that it operates within the consigns of our perspective of reality. See above. How do you know that your definition of morality applies to a deity?

4. This assumption makes no sense what so ever. How do you know what perfection is? By definition, it cannot exist within our perspective or imagination. If a deity is perfect, you will not be able to understand said perfection or its mechanisms.

[Luciratus]

Religion is but a pissing contest between close-minded intellectuals, and ignorant theists basing their knowledge on an unreliable source.

Indeed.

[New Hampshyre]

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about how reality works.

No, I only assumed that contradictions can't exist. From the rest of your argument I take it that you don't disagree that contradictions can not exist.

1. Many traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that evil was created as a test. However, it is also likely that evil arose through a deity's maintanence of free will. You cannot judge any god based on your own flawed human morality, can you?

If god created beings capable of evil then not everything that comes from him is purely good, therefore he cannot be purely good. If you have a block of pure gold in a void, it doesn't matter how you melt it, hammer it, break it, shape it, it will still be pure gold, just in different forms.

The evil may have been permitted by a god

God created everything, he did not just permit it.

but it was not forced upon us by one. Natural processes and our own decisions bring evil on us, not a deity's invisible hand or tentacle.

He forced those natural processes on us and he shaped our minds and bodies to react to those natural processes with evil. Don't forget that he's omniscient so he knew. before he ever got to work, about every single sin and evil his creations would be lead to perform.

In a universe where a being is omniscient there is NEVER free will because everything was predestined before god even got started because he knew exactly how everything would play out. Not even god would have free will since he would know exactly what the would do for all of eternity. He would just be following some ludicrous infinite script.

That's yet another contradiction inherent to god; a purely good or purely evil being has no free will since he can ONLY be good or ONLY be evil. Even if you say that man was given free will so he is no longer purely good or purely evil, wouldn't that mean that god lacks free will? Wouldn't that make humans SUPERIOR to God? At that point god is no different than physics. He's extremely powerful and "decides" how everything will ever happen, but doesn't actually make any choices. It's a rather beautiful idea in my opinion, but certainly sacrilegious to any mainstream judeo-Christian religion.

2. I would assert that a deity can be both omnipotent and omniscient. If a thing is omnipotent wouldn't it be able to control the outcome of any give scenario and thus know how it would conclude?

Yes, but he would already know what he would do and he wouldn't be able to change his mind without contradicting his omniscient powers. These two powers are very obviously contradictory.

For example, a god is playing chess. It knows every move you will make and has the ability to win the game even if you play better than it. Thus, it knows both the outcome and controls the outcome.

Yes, but he wouldn't have the power to vary from the script. Without that power he isn't omnipotent.

From a theistic point of view, a deity knows how an individual will behave due to its nature and permits free choice to be exhibited, but is omnipotent in that it can interfere if it wants to.

He is not free to choose whether to or not because, all along, before time even started, he knew whether he was going to or not.

3. You are assuming that it operates within the consigns of our perspective of reality. See above. How do you know that your definition of morality applies to a deity?

I had said "An omnipotent being cannot be purely good or evil since purely good and evil beings cannot create their reverse aspects." I don't need to define what is moral and what is evil, all I need to know is that they are mutually exclusive. Can a good god be evil? If so then Our definitions of good and evil are meaningless and God devolves into an infinitely powerful tyrant rather then an infinitely powerful divinity. Either way this is not the god of mainstream Christianity.

4. This assumption makes no sense what so ever. How do you know what perfection is?

If something is incomplete is it perfect? No. If something has a need, any need at all, including the need to make something else, is it perfect? No. Does something that is perfect do things for no reason? No.

I don't need to be able to comprehend an entirely perfect being to be able to know some specifics about it. If a a "perfect" being is incomplete then the meaning "perfect" is senseless and the description of the Judeo-Christian god is essentially gibberish.

By definition, it cannot exist within our perspective or imagination.

So? A square circle cannot exist, even in our imagination. Yet we know it does not have 5 sides or 10 corners, lol.

We can know some things about things that are beyond our full comprehension. We know that a perfect being is not a square circle since we know it cannot be a contradiction (since contradictions cannot exist). We know that it is not imperfect since an imperfect perfect being would be a contradiction. We know that it does not run on limited batteries since then it would no longer be perfect. See? We can know a lot of things about it. Isn't logic fun?

If a deity is perfect, you will not be able to understand said perfection or its mechanisms.

Just because you haven't thought up the solution to a puzzle doesn't mean it is unsolvable

[Olffrick]

We in Olffrick believe in the "Big Mouse Click Theory"

While the theory does take a position on the "who" of the issue, it takes a stab at the "what".

In the beginning an online form was filled out, and the great mighty benevolent nation of Olffrick was created with just the click of a mouse.

[Luciratus]

You seem to be making quite a few assumptions about how reality works.

No, I only assumed that contradictions can't exist. From the rest of your argument I take it that you don't disagree that contradictions can not exist.

1. Many traditional Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that evil was created as a test. However, it is also likely that evil arose through a deity's maintanence of free will. You cannot judge any god based on your own flawed human morality, can you?

If god created beings capable of evil then not everything that comes from him is purely good, therefore he cannot be purely good. If you have a block of pure gold in a void, it doesn't matter how you melt it, hammer it, break it, shape it, it will still be pure gold, just in different forms.

The evil may have been permitted by a god

God created everything, he did not just permit it.

but it was not forced upon us by one. Natural processes and our own decisions bring evil on us, not a deity's invisible hand or tentacle.

He forced those natural processes on us and he shaped our minds and bodies to react to those natural processes with evil. Don't forget that he's omniscient so he knew. before he ever got to work, about every single sin and evil his creations would be lead to perform.

In a universe where a being is omniscient there is NEVER free will because everything was predestined before god even got started because he knew exactly how everything would play out. Not even god would have free will since he would know exactly what the would do for all of eternity. He would just be following some ludicrous infinite script.

That's yet another contradiction inherent to god; a purely good or purely evil being has no free will since he can ONLY be good or ONLY be evil. Even if you say that man was given free will so he is no longer purely good or purely evil, wouldn't that mean that god lacks free will? Wouldn't that make humans SUPERIOR to God? At that point god is no different than physics. He's extremely powerful and "decides" how everything will ever happen, but doesn't actually make any choices. It's a rather beautiful idea in my opinion, but certainly sacrilegious to any mainstream judeo-Christian religion.

2. I would assert that a deity can be both omnipotent and omniscient. If a thing is omnipotent wouldn't it be able to control the outcome of any give scenario and thus know how it would conclude?

Yes, but he would already know what he would do and he wouldn't be able to change his mind without contradicting his omniscient powers. These two powers are very obviously contradictory.

For example, a god is playing chess. It knows every move you will make and has the ability to win the game even if you play better than it. Thus, it knows both the outcome and controls the outcome.

Yes, but he wouldn't have the power to vary from the script. Without that power he isn't omnipotent.

From a theistic point of view, a deity knows how an individual will behave due to its nature and permits free choice to be exhibited, but is omnipotent in that it can interfere if it wants to.

He is not free to choose whether to or not because, all along, before time even started, he knew whether he was going to or not.

3. You are assuming that it operates within the consigns of our perspective of reality. See above. How do you know that your definition of morality applies to a deity?

I had said "An omnipotent being cannot be purely good or evil since purely good and evil beings cannot create their reverse aspects." I don't need to define what is moral and what is evil, all I need to know is that they are mutually exclusive. Can a good god be evil? If so then Our definitions of good and evil are meaningless and God devolves into an infinitely powerful tyrant rather then an infinitely powerful divinity. Either way this is not the god of mainstream Christianity.

4. This assumption makes no sense what so ever. How do you know what perfection is?

If something is incomplete is it perfect? No. If something has a need, any need at all, including the need to make something else, is it perfect? No. Does something that is perfect do things for no reason? No.

I don't need to be able to comprehend an entirely perfect being to be able to know some specifics about it. If a a "perfect" being is incomplete then the meaning "perfect" is senseless and the description of the Judeo-Christian god is essentially gibberish.

By definition, it cannot exist within our perspective or imagination.

So? A square circle cannot exist, even in our imagination. Yet we know it does not have 5 sides or 10 corners, lol.

We can know some things about things that are beyond our full comprehension. We know that a perfect being is not a square circle since we know it cannot be a contradiction (since contradictions cannot exist). We know that it is not imperfect since an imperfect perfect being would be a contradiction. We know that it does not run on limited batteries since then it would no longer be perfect. See? We can know a lot of things about it. Isn't logic fun?

If a deity is perfect, you will not be able to understand said perfection or its mechanisms.

Just because you haven't thought up the solution to a puzzle doesn't mean it is unsolvable

1. Naturally, I agree with that point- at least within the frame of the model you are constructing. However, you made the assumption that contradictions can't exist. You have know possible way of knowing that this is always the case forever and every where. Some forms of physics have touched on boundaries that suggest that reality is a very strange thing. Currently, however, I agree with you. Similarly, I don't believe the Judeo-Christian god exists. I am merely playing devil's advocate, if you will.

2. Yes, but as you mentioned in a prior post, if a god did not offer the ability for an individual to commit both good and evil acts then he would be a tyrant. If free will is to exist, evil must exist. In order for good to exist, evil must exist in some form to distinguish such good. It is possible to offer the potential for both good and evil, and maintain one's own purity. Christians, Jews, and Muslims belive that while God knows what an individual will do and could in theory control an individual's actions, he permits free will. Ominpotence must be controlled in some form, or it isn't omnipotence. Have you ever heard the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

3. Theistic theory disagrees. However, the Christians believe that a deity created evil to test humanity, which offers individuals free will. I suppose permitting evil might be construed as good if it permits free will. Otherwise, you are under a tyrant.

4. He knew, but he also knew that every vice was of our own choosing. It is like watching a movie when you already know how it will end, except that a deity can control the outcome and chooses- as he knew he would- to alter in certain circumstances. If an individual chooses to do only good, it is still free will. According to the texts, it chooses good and thus maintains free will. Similarly, humans only choose evil due to their inherent flaws. To a degree, humans are unique in this capacity.

5. They are not inherently contradictory at all, though they do contain significant capacity to contradict eachother. Various philosophers had dealt with the issue reasonably and I assure you it is quite possible. Omnipotence must be controllable and reserved or it is not omnipotence, merely raw power. Similarly, a deity has the potential to do both good and evil, but chooses only good, due to a perfect nature. In some cases, omnipotence is synonomous with omniscience. A deity who never changes its mind can easily commit to both.

6. It isn't a script, but a series of decisions.

7. If you know that you will cheat on a test before you actually take the test, does that eliminate your will power? It is a similar concept.

8. The creation of will is jointly good and evil. However, it does not make the enabler of such free will evil or ungood. So long as the deity conforms to its own standards of ethics and morals, it can be considered good by such standards. The human concepts of good and evil may be misconstrued, but that does not reflect on a deity, it reflects on our limits in knowledge.

9. Does completeness equate perfection? Does perfection require a necessity? Perfection in a human form is unattainable and most certainly skewed to our own limitations. By its very nature, a deity exists outside of the boundaries, as I have mentioned before. Within the boundaries, however, it is possible to state that a deity created the universe on a desire or some other motive than cannot be known. It was not necessarily required, and it may still have a purpose.

10. There is no adequate definition which humanity can attribute to perfection. It could be a state of complete depravity, for all we know. I propose a poll: we shall ask every individual possible what exactly perfection is. I can assure you our answers will be neither insightful nor beneficial for this discussion. Perfection, at present, is a matter of subjective thinking. Objective perfection, for Christians, exists only in their god. It is perfection, and any deviation from it is not perfection. It is frankly that simple. An incredibly blind form of thinking, but plausible none the less.

[Sevru]

my guess how this is going to turn out
phase one: people state opinions
phase two:arguments begin
phase three: any proof for either side is frogotten as both sides hurl insults at each other
phase four: thread is locked

not necessarily, insulting others who wonder about the existence of God would be completely counter-productive.

[Sevru]

Simple answer, God exists
as for reading something about a square circle, God cannot do what is contrary to the nature of a thing, he cannot create a square circle because a square circle is in its nature a square, otherwise it would be illogical; similarly, God cannot create a boulder he cannot lift.

Atheists, I simple do not understand how you can believe that the entire universe with its intricate details, could be an "accident." It's illogical. I am a scientist and I'm Catholic. Think about it, how can all this be an "accident." If the substance that exploded in the big bang was off by a trillionth of a degree (F, C, K) the universe would not have formed as it did, or perhaps not at all. I simply do not understand how anyone can be a logical, thinking human being, and not know the wonder of our world and see the guiding hand of God (Deity, Creator, whatever you call Him). Also a designer is inherent in the design. Think of a beautiful painting you see for the first time, naturally you want to know who made it, why would you want to know that? Because a creator is inherent in the creation, the painting wouldn't have just appeared out of nothingness; if someone would suggest that, you'd think they were crazy. So why question a Creator's existence?

I'll try to write more when I'm not completely exhausted and I can actually think.

[Norstal]

So why question a Creator's existence?

Because that's what a fucking scientist do mate. Bloody hell. Not to mention you were intellectually dishonest when you appeal to nature.

Honestly, does this mean God create time? Or did time created God? Or did God and time exists? But the latter can't be right, because he made the world in 6 days. That'd mean he had to do the time warp.

[Big Jim P]

Simple answer, God exists
as for reading something about a square circle, God cannot do what is contrary to the nature of a thing, he cannot create a square circle because a square circle is in its nature a square, otherwise it would be illogical; similarly, God cannot create a boulder he cannot lift.

Atheists, I simple do not understand how you can believe that the entire universe with its intricate details, could be an "accident." It's illogical. I am a scientist and I'm Catholic. Think about it, how can all this be an "accident." If the substance that exploded in the big bang was off by a trillionth of a degree (F, C, K) the universe would not have formed as it did, or perhaps not at all. I simply do not understand how anyone can be a logical, thinking human being, and not know the wonder of our world and see the guiding hand of God (Deity, Creator, whatever you call Him). Also a designer is inherent in the design. Think of a beautiful painting you see for the first time, naturally you want to know who made it, why would you want to know that? Because a creator is inherent in the creation, the painting wouldn't have just appeared out of nothingness; if someone would suggest that, you'd think they were crazy. So why question a Creator's existence?

I'll try to write more when I'm not completely exhausted and I can actually think.

For the same reason, How can a creator exist, without a creator^2? The creator obviously has non-random properties, therefore had to be created to a design, implying that the creator had to have a creator.

You get the same problem when you ask a scientist "what came before the big bang".

The only possible answer is: Humans created the idea of god, the creator, and humans conceived of the big bang as an alternate beginning. Do you see a trend here?

[FallaDishwalla]

Where's the evidence of the enormous impact of these little sins? Or is this one of those magical effects that can never be observed so that it can conveniently never be proven wrong because it is beyond human understanding?

Also, even if it was voluntary for Jesus, his sacrifice STILL makes no sense. It still does nothing to actually forgive us for our supposedly horrifying sins. It has no causal effect at all.

Where's the evidence for the little impact of the supposed little sins? I was merely stating the position, not debating merits of either.

As for the "the sacrifice STILL makes no sense", that's in the eyes of the deity. Meaning, if the deity decides such sacrifice is an adequate recompense, it is. Where does causality fit in?

It's like a judge saying someone has to pay $xxx to a family in a wrongful death suit. What causal effect does the money have? None. So why did the family seek it and why did the judge grant it? It's an imperfect example, I know.

The point is, if the deity in question is one which requires blood sacrifice of a pure creature to atone for the sins of those offering the sacrifice, it makes sense (within that religious system) that a blemish free human (or God in human flesh, to use Christian vernacular) could offer himself to atone for the sins of the blemished. And if this deity is real and (as is believed in the Christian worldview) created the world we live in to work as it does (as the deity designed it to work), then the causal effect you seek is the wrong question. It would be like when I was a freshman university student and asked my linear algebra professor why a set was said to have the listed characteristics. He replied, "There's nothing to explain. That's the definition."

[Salandriagado]

Simple answer, God exists
as for reading something about a square circle, God cannot do what is contrary to the nature of a thing, he cannot create a square circle because a square circle is in its nature a square, otherwise it would be illogical; similarly, God cannot create a boulder he cannot lift.

Actually, if you believe the bible, he did:

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it

Atheists, I simple do not understand how you can believe that the entire universe with its intricate details, could be an "accident." It's illogical. I am a scientist and I'm Catholic. Think about it, how can all this be an "accident." If the substance that exploded in the big bang was off by a trillionth of a degree (F, C, K) the universe would not have formed as it did, or perhaps not at all.

I take it this science didn't involve any statistics? Yes, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes given very slightly varying inputs. Your mistake lies in stating that this implies that any one of these outputs being true implies that it was selected. This is incorrect, as such a logical extension follows that the probability of anything at all happening equates to zero, which is ridiculous. In fact, the chance of something happening in such a situation is one, and it can therefore the precise value of what happened can be discounted.

I simply do not understand how anyone can be a logical, thinking human being, and not know the wonder of our world and see the guiding hand of God (Deity, Creator, whatever you call Him).

"Wonder" is entirely subjective. What one may regard as wonderous others might regard as hideous. Also, random chance produces pretty things just as well as conscious effort. When I look at the world, I see no evidence of any kind of creator that couldn't just as easily be random chance.

Also a designer is inherent in the design. Think of a beautiful painting you see for the first time, naturally you want to know who made it, why would you want to know that? Because a creator is inherent in the creation, the painting wouldn't have just appeared out of nothingness; if someone would suggest that, you'd think they were crazy. So why question a Creator's existence?

I'll try to write more when I'm not completely exhausted and I can actually think.

Not true. You would assume that something had consciously created it purely because you know of nothing else that could do it. On the other hand, it is quite possible for "beauty" (from a given perspective) to be created randomly. For example:

Is both randomly generated and, as far as I am concerned, beautiful.

[Circassian Nation]

Is santa real?

[Demen]

Religion is but a pissing contest between close-minded intellectuals, and ignorant theists basing their knowledge on an unreliable source.

Indeed.

[Free Soviets]

Also a designer is inherent in the design. Think of a beautiful painting you see for the first time, naturally you want to know who made it, why would you want to know that? Because a creator is inherent in the creation, the painting wouldn't have just appeared out of nothingness; if someone would suggest that, you'd think they were crazy. So why question a Creator's existence?

think of a boring old rock you see for the first time. naturally, you wonder who the rock-maker was. right? right?!

surely if the creator is inherent in the creation, every lump of feldspar should be just as creator-suggesting as everything else. but it clearly isn't. hmm weird, that. perhaps you human tendency to attribute agency is overacting in some cases?

[New Heliopolis]

Anyhow, what you were doing with it was essentially the same thing--the specifics were just implied. Instead of having to state a specific doctrine, you simply let it be implied by the incredibly obvious. The same with the other parts.

What?

Or, if that doesn't work for you, 4, 16, and 64 do belong to the set of even numbers, but they also belong to the set of square numbers.

So?

Look, I assume you have a specific view as to which of the myriad ways the universe could have been created without a god (Membrane collision between infinitely myriad types of membranes, Bubble Nucleation within an infinite number of universes other than this one, etc.), since that's the only way there's "only one in the alternative". But even assuming you have a way of proving that there is, in fact, only one way the universe could have come about without a god, it still doesn't change the validity of my original statement.

See, you were divvying up ideas behind creation by "presence of a creator" or "absence of a creator". By whether or not said idea fell into x subcategory. But what if I check for y subcategory (say...creation ideas featuring six-dimensional blue beings) instead? What makes anything other than which subcategory I'm looking at different?

[Mike the Progressive]

I don't know and I think it is impossible to ever really know (until you're dead, obviously).

[New Heliopolis]

I don't know and I think it is impossible to ever really know (until you're dead, obviously).

Not if there isn't an afterlife. Then you're too brain-dead to know.

[Mike the Progressive]

I don't know and I think it is impossible to ever really know (until you're dead, obviously).

Not if there isn't an afterlife. Then you're too brain-dead to know.

You know what I mean.

[Rambhutan]

Do Christians believe that you have to repent in this life - ie can you repent in the afterlife?

[Mike the Progressive]

Do Christians believe that you have to repent in this life - ie can you repent in the afterlife?

Most Christians think the afterlife is it. And your actions in this life determine if you go up or down.

[Serchar-Batelo]

Is god real? No.

[New Hampshyre]

Simple answer, God exists
as for reading something about a square circle, God cannot do what is contrary to the nature of a thing, he cannot create a square circle because a square circle is in its nature a square

So you agree that God cannot create contradictions. I listed several ways that the Judeo-Christian God would be a contradiction. Therefore, he cannot exist. His definition must be amended, or he must be ceased to be belied in.

Atheists, I simple do not understand how you can believe that the entire universe with its intricate details, could be an "accident."

That's ok, your not being able to understand something doesn't make it any less true. Also, "accident" is your word, not ours. Don't build straw men by throwing in your own words.

Think about it, how can all this be an "accident."

I don't know. But I know some things:

1) God cannot be a contradiction so the Judeo-Christaian one CANNOT exist. It doesn't matter if the universe doesn't make sense to you, that doesn't make it possible for contradictions to exist.

2) God doesn't serve as an answer for your dilemma in the first place. Answering the question of why the universe is around with "god dun it" is not an answer because then you have to ask "why is there a god?" It's like asking "why doesn't the Earth fall down?" and getting the answer "Because it's lying on a giant tortoise". That doesn't answer a darn thing because we then have to question what the tortoise is standing on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

If the substance that exploded in the big bang was off by a trillionth of a degree (F, C, K) the universe would not have formed as it did

Yes, but if there is an infinite number of universes then the odds that one will be like ours is 100%. If our solar system developed just a little differently where would be lo life possible in it. But, since the number of solar systems in the universe is ridiculously large, odds are very good that some of them hold life.

Also, no one has proven that it is not possible for life to exist in universes very different then ours. It might be possible that other possible types of universes are much more friendly towards the development of life than ours has been.

I simply do not understand how anyone can be a logical, thinking human being, and not know the wonder of our world and see the guiding hand of God (Deity, Creator, whatever you call Him).

Logical, thinking, beings do not answer the biggest questions in the universe by believing in bronze age myths. They say "I don't know the answer, but maybe one day we will".

Also a designer is inherent in the design.

Who designs snow flakes?

Think of a beautiful painting you see for the first time, naturally you want to know who made it, why would you want to know that?

That's because we know that people paint paintings. It is an observable fact we can prove at any time. We've also never come across any other being that has ever painted a painting so why would we have any reason to believe it was natural? But we do NOT readily observe the creation of universes. We CAN see nature forming things that APPEAR to have design, when they truly do not at all, such as the snow flakes I mentioned.

Because a creator is inherent in the creation

Yeah but who created the creator? And you can't say that he simply always WAS. If we allow for infinite regression like that then we can allow that all the matter and energy that makes up the universe has always existed in one form or another.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Actually what you are decribing is agnosticism, which being undecided. Having no definitive belief in God's existence or non-existence, it can't be called a religion. Atheism is a definitive belief in the non-existence of God, which requires a leap of faith, although admittedly that leap is much smaller than for those that do believe.

No, what he is describing is implicit atheism. Agnosticism is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of knowledge.

Agnostic(noun):a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Origin: Prefix A (meaning non, as in asexual) plus the greeek word gnōtós, which means known. In essence the, word itself means "no knowledge".

[New Hampshyre]

if the deity in question is one which requires blood sacrifice of a pure creature to atone for the sins of those offering the sacrifice, it makes sense

In that case the 9-11 hijackers should be praised because what they did was divine and made perfect sense.

That is the end result if you allow for religious dogma to over rule reason.