The following essay is influenced heavily from a man named George H. Smith, an atheist philosopher and author of the book Atheism: The Case Against God.
When most people speak of God, they assume that "God" is in reference to the Judeo-Christian God. However, no one can really describe God, and this is probably because no one has seen Him. All attempts to describe God have failed, and upon closer inspection, they even describe "non-existence."
For example, in the National Catholic Almanac, God is described as "almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true."
Let us first focus our attention on the word "incomprehensible". It means that we cannot comprehend God. In this sense, a Christian or Catholic who uses this word is basically an agnostic. If God can't be comprehended, then how can the author of this Almanac even list anything else? The difficulty for Christians, Jews, and Muslims is in their attempts to describe Him. How do they know God is just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, patient, perfect, provident or holy if we cannot comprehend him? I'll tell you how; they made the whole thing up! So right off the bat, we can easily discard all these adjectives.
As for the other descriptions, keep in mind the word "non-existence" and ask yourself if the following words apply to it: immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, and invisible. These words are not a description of what God is; they are a description of what God is not. He is not mortal, not small, can not be challenged, can not be comprehended, can not be described, is not finite, and can not be seen. One can say the same thing about "non-existence."
In other words, not existing is the same thing as God, at least according to those who believe God can be described in the above manner. In this sense, Catholics and other Christians who use these descriptions are inadvertently atheists.
I assure you that this only applies to the judeo-Christian version of God. I can't argue against pagans or people who believe in Nature as their god. For one thing, we can actually see the Earth and the sun, which helps toward credibility. In fact, the first religions started as nature worship.
The further away from nature a religious ideology goes, the easier it is to tear it down logically. Why? It is because these ideologies are anti-natural (unnatural?) Religions have a way of mirroring the type of civilization its believers are from.
For instance, when hunting and gathering tribes roamed the land, they worshiped nature because the earth and the sun provided them with everything they needed. These people even had a natural harmony with the earth. Women had which were just as important, if different, then men's.
When humans began to manipulate the Earth for their benefit (tilling the soil to grow crops, domesticating animals, humans began developing multiple gods and goddesses. These gods, though often with animal characteristics, had the same basic humanoid shape as man.
When humans began to exploit other people's labor, and when civilizations became larger (like the slave states of Rome and Greece), the gods and goddesses simply looked human.
Finally, in the Middle East, the concept of one God, a man, took over. The idea eventually spread and took hold in Europe, during the reign of the Roman Empire. The Roman empire has had a lot of impact on our own beliefs. The Catholic religion itself was created so the barbarians (Celts, Goths, etc.), who believed in many gods, would be able to adopt Christianity as their religion. Their solution was to replace their gods and goddesses with the saints, thus supplying them with an easy transition. Christianity has evolved so that we now live in a patriarchal (male-dominated) culture in which we humans are in constant struggle against nature.
We want to believe in God because we fear death. And because we can't stand the obviousness of the truth, that our consciousness is finite and that we ourselves are a part of the world that spawned us, we lie to ourselves.

Closed.

There is no question here to debate.

Check out this thread again A Question to Debate and PM with your debate question.

-Jaime