Oh, yeah, I never addressed the original question.
Yep. I doubt that atheism would slow 'em down in the slightest.
Jon, I also am firmly convinced that proof one way or the other will not be produced (saying it cannot, by the way, is denial that god exists, isn’t it?). However, I am a devout atheist. For the difference, consider the case of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Although I have no concrete proof that the IPU doesn’t exist, I am quite convinced that it indeed does not.
Hmmm…I suppose that God could always prove his own existence. Ok, let’s stick with “will not”.
LOL 
I love the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I’ve started incorporating that in my discussions with fundies.
Really, if you’re convinced that there is no God, no soul, no chi, no afterlife, no reincarnation, no IPU, no midichlorian, etc, then more power to you! By the same token, I’m glad that the real truly religious people have found some solace in their faith (whatever faith it may be). I personally not had any reason to think that either side of the argument has a direct line to any objective “truth”, beyond their own limited experience and what they choose to believe.
While I have a tough time imagining that there is a concious, anthropomorphic creator watching over us and really giving a damn what we do, I concede that it is just as possible as an Invisible Pink Unicorn (although the IPU is more fun). I do not, however, have a difficult time imagining some undefined (possibly undefinable) force that plays some part in what we define as “life”. The atheist viewpoint is that this force is unnecessary, but I have yet to hear an argument that goes beyond that.
On the other hand, I don’t have too tough of a time imagining a world as the atheists describe, either. I occasionally listen to a Christian radio station while I’m driving (don’t ask me why…I find it entertaining), and after a little while of listening to them (or reading some of the posts from fundies here and on fark), atheism makes more and more sense to me. Invisible Pink Unicorn, indeed! Sometimes I really have trouble separating out what they’re saying from the Greek Mythology I read in school.
The closest thing to a convincing argument I’ve heard from a religious person was a Christian I was stationed with in the Navy (LOTS of atheists on submarines, by the way) who just let me know that he believed, and had no doubt that there was a God, and that he felt loved and protected every minute of every day. Ok, so he has a personal “knowlege” of God, and doesn’t expect that I would have had the same experience. That works a helluvalot better for me than trying to do the “because the bible says so, so you must believe it” bit. If I ever have an epiphany like this guy did, I’ll start believing at that point.
I’ll tell ya’, though, while it makes for a fun discussion, I don’t spend too much time on it beyond the mental exercise offered in situations like this. It really doesn’t matter (unless the Christians are right - and in that case, most of them are going to Hell because all but one of the sects HAS to be practicing the wrong variant of Christianity), and in due time we’ll all either find out for sure, or cease existence, and therefore caring about it.
Ok, I work nights, so I need to get my ass to bed. G’night all! Hopefully I’ll have some good thoughtful discussion to work on later (or at least the flaming will be arguable).
God Bless 
Jon
Epistemology states that in order for me to “know” ‘A’:
P1: I must have proof of A
P2: A must be true
P3: I must believe in A
There is more to this, but at it’s base, that is what is commonly accepted in any study of metaphysics and epistemology. There are differing viewpoints, and some claim that knowledge is not possible at all, as ridiculous as that sounds.
Belief is omnipresent. You believe that there is a physical world out there, you believe that I am capable of understanding these odd little characters on the screen, you believe that you’re actually talking to real people rather than complex machines, you believe your finger motions on the keyboard translate into commands happening on the computer. Regardless of proof, you still believe in those things.
I don’t believe there’s much of a problem with the difference in definitions. Imagine I have a piece of chalk in my hand, and I have confidence that it will fall when I let go of it. The only difference between faith and confidence in this instance is that I am confident because I can say that every time before I let go of the chalk, it has fallen. I still have faith that the chalk will fall, but that faith is bolstered by experimental proof, and therefore I can say I am confident in it falling.
I realize I’m deviating more and more from the OP, but what I say seems to hold some importance in this thread.
It takes just as much “faith” to not believe in God as it takes to believe in God. What proof do you have that there is nothing out there? Atheists are not somehow “justified” in their belief that there is no God, you too must disprove such an existence. Furthermore, as much as it has been tried, no one has done it quite yet.
Lastly, I don’t think the world would be a shred different at all. Morality does not need to derive from something to exist. Like others have mentioned, there have been plenty of situations in which people have developed moral systems without a belief in God. Both Kantianism and utilitarianism are functioning ethical systems that have no God, or afterlife, or eternal punishment implicit in them in any sense. Shodan puts entirely too much stock in people’s fear of divine punishment. A lot of people are nice simply because it feels good to be nice.
But that’s not quite Shodan’s point - he’s trying to convey that morality itself is a null concept without a “higher authority” defining it for us, and that “being nice” wouldn’t make one whit of difference, and we’d do just as well to go around knifing people.
I paraphrased his arguments to my wife in a description of this thread a few days ago. Her comment was that, if there are people who figure that God’s word is the only reason that there’s anything wrong with murder, torture, rape, etc, then it’s a damn good thing that they believe in God. Fair enough!
So: Shodan, you just keep on believing whatever keeps you from doing mean things to people. I’ll do the same.
No, no, no.
a) atheists have faith – my “faith” amounts to subscribing to the thesis that what appears to be here, is here, and, what doesn’t appear to be here, ain’t. That’s no faith at all. I can dismiss the IPU out of hand without once engaging my faith engine.
b) atheists are not justified – who cares, we’re right
c) atheists must disprove god – not so, else we’d have to spend our time dismissing ever hue of fairies and invisible unicorns, and an infinity of other fantastical notions.
I believe I have addressed this “atheism a faith position idea” canard more than once on these boards, possibly even earlier in the thread, it’s getting tired now, let it rest in peace.
Why do these discussions always degrade into solipsism? Yes, we all had the thought when we were 10 years old that maybe we’re all just a brain in a box, and all reality is an illusion. Aside from the “Whoah! that’s trippy” factor, I just don’t find solipsism to be a very interesting avenue of discussion, and there is certainly nothing to be proven by going down that road.
You say the “only” difference, as if that difference were insignificant. In fact, it is highly significant; perhaps the most significant factor in our existence. The concepts of skeptical inquiry and the scientific method are responsible for virtually every material advancement the human race has ever made. The difference between arbitrary and unsupported belief, and belief founded on evidence and reason is incredibly profound. As I said before, the significance is easily demonstrated by the difference between the successful moon landing of the Apollo astronauts, and the tragic death of the Heaven’s Gate cult members.
Since Unwashed has already put the lie to this chestnut, I will refrain as much as possible from being redundant. But let me just say that requiring one to believe every conceivable notion that could ever be thought of until is is disproven, is patently absurd. Admit that you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or else submit your proof of Her non-existence.
You present a false dichotomy: Either God exists, or there is “nothing out there”. If there is “something” out there (whatever that means), how do you justify assuming it is God? The theist makes 2 assumptions: 1) There IS “something” out there, and 2) That “something” is God. The atheist makes NO assumptions.
“Faith” does not have to be religious. I will say that I synonimize “faith” in this discussion with “believe” or “belief”.
You believe in a materialistic world. That the only things that exist are those which are physically tangible in some sense. Fine, but that’s still a belief. And a belief that is no more priveleged than Platonism, or Theism.
I’m not even going to deal with the drivel that is statement ‘b’.
Fine, I won’t ask you to disprove God, but don’t believe for even a second that God is set to the “non-existent” setting by default. For a theist to believe in God is a leap of faith, there is no concrete proof to prove the existence of an intangible being, and so no concrete reason to believe in him. For an atheist to disbelieve in God is a leap of faith, there is no concrete proof to prove that there is no intangible being, and so no concrete reason to believe that he does not exist.
I brought up the solipsism to show that belief is omnipresent. Everyone has a set of beliefs, and I state that as an absolute with no exceptions so long as we are dealing with normal humans with an average mental capacity.
The difference between faith and belief is not insignificant, and yes it’s the basis of science. But regardless, the difference between science and theism is that science has experimental proof supporting it. The difference between having faith in something and being able to say you’re confident in something is that with confidence, you have empirical or mathematical/logical proof.
I fail to see what “lie” I have been presenting, face it, there is no proof about God one way or the other, and so the existence of God is a toss up. The theist makes an assumption that there is an intangible being, and that intangible being is what is referred to when the name “God” is invoked. One assumption. The atheist assumes that there exist no intangible beings, and thus the name “God” refers to nothing. One assumption on both sides, and if you fall anywhere in between those two assumptions, then you are not an atheist and not the kind of person I am addressing.
There would be a false dichotomy if I said that (Not believing in God = Believing there is no God), but that was not the case. I’m talking specifically about atheism and theism, nothing about agonisticism. Once again, there is no empirical proof that supports either, and so if one must offer a proof of existence, the other must as well.
I address some of your “points” here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4108405#post4108405
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4087912#post408712
You must realise that broadening the definition of faith to include all beliefs is not helpful, nor can add to the discussion?