Time to lift taboo on atheism

Again, you're misunderstanding the science.
Physicists question whether time even existed prior to our universe, so it's wrong to say for certain that quantum fluctuations within our universe (or multiverse as the case may be) are "always" or "eternal".
While quantum fluctuations are proven they the same can't be said of Zeus,  Mithra, unicorns, or Yahweh.
It's more honest to say that we have no evidence for anything supernatural, including gods.

God does not exist because atheists and people who do not believe in God exist.
I am not debating the logic of omnipotency paradoxes. If you really consider the above statement, you should without too much complication realise the non-existence of God - unless, of course, you are really unwilling to give up your imaginary friend.
Good luck.

It was not meant as a conundrum, just logic. ... The unlimited creativity of God can't be measured by God because it is infinite
But that was not my answer. My answer was that both capabilities are infinite and without limit.
Atheists and people who don't believe in God exist and they are conscious. If God really existed, atheists would not exist because God would be omnipotent.
So your clear thesis is that anyone becoming an atheist God would die, and because there are atheists alive therefore God does not exist.
Curious.

If you start with nothing, then quantum fluctuations will produce something. Nothing isn't really nothing in the modern picture of physics
In other words, there has always been "something", whether this is a God or quantum fluctuations.

Why ever would they not? No one denies the previous existence of dinosaurs, just the time they were alive and the nature of their dying out.

"What there was before the big bang?"
Well "before" implies time and physicists question whether time existed prior to the cause of the big bang. If you start with nothing, then quantum fluctuations will produce something. Nothing isn't really nothing in the modern picture of physics. The overall energy level of our universe is zero, so it could have started from nothing (google for 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Kraus). More to the point we're talking about something that lacks evidence (from both the religious and scientific approach). So it's fine to talk about possibilities (multiverse, anthropic principle, some physics scenario, or various supernatural ideas) but if we pretend that these are true answers then we're fooling ourselves. If we do that then that's what's called an 'Argument from ignorance' which is the idea that "I don't know how this happened, therefore X did it". If you look historically there were questions like "Why do things fall down?" or "Why are life forms adapted to their environment?" with the answer "the Christian God did it" or "Unicorns did it". Notice that they don't have any supporting evidence towards their conclusion. All they have is a question that - at the time - didn't have an answer.
It's more honest to simply say we don't know, but that science is progressing and it understands many aspects of quantum physics (etc.) and Hawkings' book explains a lot of hard science around these beginnings of our universe.

[Abridged]

It was not meant as a conundrum, just logic. I think it becomes a conundrum if you really believe in God. If you don't believe in God it makes plenty of sense.
The unlimited creativity of God can't be measured by God because it is infinite, therefore God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then God is subject to the law of change, this means that God does not exist forever, nor does creation because they are constantly evolving.
Virtual people don't use conundrums, they are numerical equations built within a contained framework with set parameters of binary code designed by human consciousness. But considering the framework contained the ability to transcode and hold consciousness, then of course the non existence of the author can be proven because the author will be the consciousness contained.
Atheists and people who don't believe in God exist and they are conscious. If God really existed, atheists would not exist because God would be omnipotent.
Either way the atheist wins because the atheist can prove the non existence of God.

This is the core of the work that Hawking has done. It indicates that nothing needed to exist.
Ah, a good answer.
So (paraphrasing R. C. Sproul) for a timeless eternity eternity there is nothing, nothing, nothing.
Then one Tuesday at 5:15pm there is suddenly something.
What forced this change?

Can creationists have a favorite dinosaur?

Of course, and I personally believe only one of them. But you have failed to answer my question so I shall rephrase. Can you describe what there was before the big bang?

This is the core of the work that Hawking has done. It indicates that nothing needed to exist.

With your creation myth belief, how do you know that your one is the correct one? Especially as Hawking has a more consistent explanation than any religion can come up with.

The problem with many creation myths is they do not match the physical reality. For example the fossil record, -I found it extremely amusing to see the Christian explanation that these deposits were a test from God of your belief in the Bible.

Q. Can God create something so massive that God can't measure?
No, because there is no limit to either God's ability to create, nor his ability to measure. Both are equally infinite.
Here's a counter-question. Could your conundrum be used by virtual people within a computer program to prove the non-existence of the person who programmed that virtual world?

I expect the results of the survey would be very different in NZ, with the prejudice of 'believers' towards atheists being roughly an equally negative force to the prejudice of atheists towards believers. Maybe the reality doesn't match my expectation - has such a survey been done here?

Phil 102 >>> Q. Is God omnipotent? A. Yes. (Yes=God wins/No=Atheism wins) Q. Can God create something so massive that God can't measure? Yes or No? Atheism wins either way.

Gary Gutting in the article you link seriously advocates the idea that because people feel something that qualifies as substantive evidence, and the article misunderstands the terms atheist (which is a lack of belief) and agnostic (which is that the supernatural is unknown or unknowable).

The MandM blog (of which I was already familiar) seriously advocates that children shouldn't be taught evolution in schools - a bone of contention for Dawkins and a good example of the issue he talks about in his book.

I would hope that you don't mean those particular arguments but until you clarify what your claims are it's unclear to everyone.

...Realists say ' we don't know, because we have insufficient facts and we may never know'. They don't just make the answer up.

Well, that's your point of view. Mine is the exact opposite.
You seem unconcerned with the idea that there may once have been nothing. That worries me.

The reason these regimes killed people had nothing to do with atheism or religion.
They were killed because they disagreed with the leadership on religion.

All religions have sacred books and these contain creation myths.
Of course, and I personally believe only one of them.
But you have failed to answer my question so I shall rephrase. Can you describe what there was before the big bang?

The reason these regimes killed people had nothing to do with atheism or religion. They were killed because they disagreed with the leadership, not because they were of a particular religion.

As for what Stephen Hawking believes, it is actually covered in his book, but the important concept that came from him is that all of the creation myths from all of the mainstream religions are irrelevant. They are not required to define the universe.

All religions have sacred books and these contain creation myths. If the work that Stephen Hawking has done has shown that these creation myths are wrong, then it must bring the whole accuracy and relevance of these sacred texts into question.

So where a religion justifies an action or law because the Bible/Quran/etc says it, the basis of these actions and laws are suspect.

There is no argument - all people are capable of violence. I believe most people spend their time trying to better themselves and others - not just 'genuine believers'.
Stephen Hawking may believe that there once was nothing. He is entitled to his beliefs. It is the conceit of human beings that we have an answer for everything. When 'genuine believers' are stuck for an answer, they say, 'therefore there is a God'. Realists say ' we don't know, because we have insufficient facts and we may never know'. They don't just make the answer up.

Well if "a number" of unnamed philosophers say it then you've convinced me.

I was going for brevity. Since you insist, I suggest you start with Gary Gutting who described the book:
I find Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” stimulating, informative, and often right on target. But it does not make a strong case for atheism. His case is weak because it does not take adequate account of the philosophical discussions that have raised the level of reflection about God’s existence far above that at which he operates.

You could also look at the MandM blog, Matt (who is a professional philosopher) there will give you all the information you require on further references, I'm sure.
The closest they've got is what's known as an 'argument from ignorance'...That's not positive evidence, or inductive logic.

Since you questioned my lack of references, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you provide none for your own statements?
Dawkins does not typically debate theologians because he is interested in scientific evidence and they offer none.

Equally, they're interested in solid reasoning and he has provided none. Yet they are willing to compromise and grant him a debate.
Christopher Hitchens has however debated Dr William Lane Craig, and you can find the videos on YouTube.
I haven't seen the videos myself, only the reviews from atheists. Let's just say it was not exactly regarded as a clash of the titans.
The depth of Hitchens' humiliation when faced with an actual professional philosopher would be a more reasonable explanation as to why Dawkins refuses to front.

The Christian God is a cultural character that was used to explain...
You forgot genetics from your list (Gregor Mendel), and electromagnetism (Michael Faraday).

The author wondered why atheists have such a bad reputation, quoting religious extremists.
My point was the reason why atheists are not trusted - that they are always trying to tar religions as evil. But in reply to this point you simply dig a deeper hole by bringing up more situations.
Are you making the point that people are violent in the name of religion? I agree with you - why would I not?
But what is missing is balance - that is, he (and others) ignores that regimes that have declared atheism as their state religion have killed millions of their own citizens (as one example). It's by taking such dishonest arguments that atheists become distrusted by genuine believers, who spend their time trying to better themselves and others.
As for Stephen Hawking: perhaps you could tell me if he believes that there was once nothing?

@JD
Well if "a number" of unnamed philosophers say it then you've convinced me.
There is no scientific evidence or philosophical argument in favour of a particular religion's gods. The closest they've got is what's known as an 'argument from ignorance' e.g. "I can't explain why the universe started so God did it". That's not positive evidence, or inductive logic.
Our moral compass, or innate morality, is the evolved product of social cohesion. Co-operation is a great technique for survival.
Dawkins does not typically debate theologians because he is interested in scientific evidence and they offer none. If they want to present peer-reviewed evidence he has said that he would debate them. The ball is in the theologians court, not in his.
Christopher Hitchens has however debated Dr William Lane Craig, and you can find the videos on YouTube.
The Christian God is a cultural character that was used to explain the world when we knew very little about tectonic plates, viruses, mutation, evolution, abiogenesis, innate morality, the brain, and the universe. We have better explanations now.

He has addressed all the questions that religion has said science can't answer. It appears from the work that he has done there is no requirement for any god in the existence of our universe.

Also JD, The author only mentioned one religious-based incident. If you want to look closer there are so many that you could have a large book just based on all the incidents. I lived in the UK for a few years and remember the Catholics and the Protestants fighting it out.

I for one don't care about what the religions do as long as I don't end up as collateral damage (i.e dead).

Much can be said about the unique beliefs of 'believers', but they are happier with them so they should be allowed them, so long as they do not persecute 'non-believers'.
Unfortunately, some seem unable to accept that we don't all believe what they believe. That seems intolerant to me, yet most religions preach tolerance, don't they?

To quote the author:
It is remarkable that atheists have such a bad reputation, when you can look at a newspaper and read that a Shi'ite Muslim set off a suicide bomb in a market in Afghanistan filled with Sunni Muslims.

His answer is right there. He wonders why people are unimpressed with atheism while equating all religious with one small extremist group.
He also mentions Richard Dawkins.

Unfortunately, a number of philosophers have pointed out that Dawkins' is in fact woefully ignorant when it comes to current arguments concerning God's existence.

As an amateur philosopher, he has refused to debate the top Christian philosopher in the entire world on the basis that his prospective opponent (Dr William Lane Craig) would only do so in order to pad out his CV.

That's as absurd as turning down a round of Golf with Tiger woods because Tiger wants to be famous.