How can an atheist possibly make sense of a world in which the vast majority of people adhere to a religious tradition? If atheism is correct and at the basis of all these religions lie mistaken facts and historical inaccuracies- for example that Jesus was risen from the dead, that Muhammad was visited by an angel, etc.- then the majority of humans who have ever existed have based their actions and beliefs upon a lie.

To many people, belief in God and belief in universal moral values is axiomatic. In fact, many believe that if God does not exist, then everything is morally permissible. But note that almost everyone believes that at least some things are morally impermissible; the best example might be raping a child. And if raping a child is not morally permissible, then not everything is morally permissible. Therefore, it seems to follow that God does indeed exist. This would be the argument form MT and it would be sounds correct? But why?

Theists often claim that the "fine-tuning" of the universe indicates that it was created especially for man by a divine benevolence. Doesn't the fact that the earth will eventually be incapable of supporting any life (when the sun eventually runs out of energy) disprove this hypothesis? And what of the fact that the entire universe it seems will one day be incapable of supporting intelligent life (the big-freeze)?

What is the current general consensus as to the fine-tuning design argument for the existence of God? Thanks.

Is religion merely a primitive form of science?

Theists often claim that the complexities of nature and the tiny details that allow human life to exist are evidence of god, as nothing so intricate and unlikely could happen without a designer. I believe that this is not the case as the universe is infinitely massive, and there are thousands, probably even millions of different planets. Logically, it is inevitable that at least one of those randomly created planets would have the required characteristics for life to survive. Can anybody provide a convincing counter argument to this?

Many philosophers who specialise in religion are atheists. How can they speak about the fundamentals of a religion without believing in those fundamentals? Won't this inevitable lead to condescension?

Early Islam meets almost every criteria for the definition of a "cult". Believers were removed their friends and families- from Mecca to "The Prophet's Town" Medina, unconditional love was given by a charismatic leader (Muhammad), believers received a new identity based on the group "Muslim", access to material critical of Muhammad or Islam was cut off (the murder of satirical poets by Muhammad), unwavering faith to the group was demanded, leaving the group was prohibited (death penalty for apostates), the beliefs of the group contradict logic and science, it was encouraged that group members only socialize and marry other group members, the threat of hellfire was used to control group members, the beliefs of the group are extremely absolutist ("Islam is the only true religion") and group members were encouraged to gain as many new followers as possible. According to these criteria can Islam still be considered a cult, or has it "evolved" into something else? Furthermore, if we can agree that it at least...

Theists often claim that it is impossible that the universe just randomly "sprang into existence" out of nothing, for no reason. M-theory posits a cosmological world-view in which an infinite number of universes are continually coming into and going out of existence within the framework of an eternal multiverse. If correct, does this disprove the theist argument?

According to Kant, as I understand him, nature has an orderliness that appears (or compels belief in) to have been ordered by a divine power, but that the validity of such an appearance can neither be proved or disproved by the power of (pure) reason. Darwin's theory shows (as I understand it) that all life is the product of successive random forces. Does Kant's philosophy remain unaffected by this Darwinian insight?