George, it's not nearly as complicated as your mental gymnastics make it. As an atheist, I remain willing to be convinced that "God" exists if empirical evidence can be presented that logically leads to that conclusion. I don't say there is no God, rather that such evidence as is usually cited for the existence of one is insufficient to convince me.

Exactly the same argument applies for Easter Bunnies. I would happily believe in their existence if I happened to catch one in the act of delivering Easter eggs to my kids. Until then, I'll have to continue to purchase them from the shop.

I meant no personal offence by describing your argument as sophistry - but that's what it is, in a particular form that is widely deployed by religionists who attempt to reduce atheism to a belief system equivalent to theirs. It's a dishonest argument, and I'm surprised that you would stoop to it.

And false gods proceed to cause division even after 2000 years of bloodshed and war against all our brothers and the evidence never stops. On this site is a perfect example of what religion causes and is nothing more than a time waster and these energies could of been put to a more productive use.(IMO)
This endless pursuit to obtain the knowledge of these false gods will consume mankind forever so I have come to the conclusion that I will not teach my children in any way shape or form, nor will I guide them in any direction regarding religion or any other type of misadventure.
(the natural world, a better learning)
Being uncontaminated is a freedom one may not understand and one could never obtain without the luck of birthright. The weight that religious people carry on their shoulders, no atheist ever has to bear that load, and the crystal clarity of an untarnished sole shines brighter and hovers free of chains and is spiritually free to wander the universe. (if this takes place)

What ever you believe in is really no-one else's business but your own and always remember, when you ask yourself a question, who are you asking? And this is just another little piece of evidence concerning voices in the head from primitive man and left to this frightening world to make sense of it all, and isn't it funny how we all act differently but think the same. I believe everything in the universe must be balanced, and anything causing chaos must be adjusted.
(population increases)
In my opinion, atheists have the right to exercise their views and opinions just like any other religions including Christianity. I see no reason why debates like these should be banned, I believe it's a very healthy thing for the mind, but should continue in a orderly fashion. Religion needs to be discussed for reasons that are beyond me, but once again, when religion becomes politicized the wheels of the world start falling off.

Emotions will always run high as the human-race discovers itself.
Sad but true story.

EVO

This is another stupid thread which has no real significance or meaning.

Anyones religous beliefs should be a matter of "faith".

To have "faith" requires no "proof".

In fact those who seek proof (like the evidence of "miracles" which the Church of Rome hankers after) demean their faith with any such attachment or expectation of "proof".

George,

Well, perhaps I'm something else then, because neither your quote from an agnostic nor Korner's description of an atheist apply to me.

In terms the universe, I think everything that happens is potentially explicable in scientific terms, although humans may never be sufficiently advanced to explain it. No act of faith is required to hold this position — the entire history of observable science leads us to believe this is true. It further fails to fit the definition of faith because it is always open to further discovery and debunking. It is highly conditional. Scrutiny and scepticism line the path to the truths about the universe.

In terms of god, I have no belief.

I don't know how to explain this more effectively — my fault, I know, but there it is. I appreciate that you don't see the distinction but it is perfectly clear to me.

A lot of effort is being expended by religious believers into trying to lecture atheists that not believing in the Easter Bunny is (apparently) not the same as not believing in god(s).

I bet the Easter Bunny is really pissed off...

The issue of evidence vs belief is an interesting one.

My experience is that many followers do think that there is evidence for important sections of their faiths teachings. There has been substantial work done around the "evidence" for the resurection of Jesus. Aspects of the faith can't be proven but the general idea is that if some bit's can be proven and are not suitably explained by other means then it makes the rest seem more likely.

The "evidence" is unlikely to convince someone who is not already wanting to believe but it does help settle qualms about believing without proof.

The story of doubting Thomas add's to this. I think that assumption that religious belief is without evidence misunderstands the position of many believers. The issue has to more to do with the credibility of the evidence and what is extrapolated from it.

I'm not trying to address the semantics of the word belief but rather my understanding of how the mix of evidence and belief works for some believers.

R0bert