Agnostic.
Frankly, there's not enough proof for either
All the Atheist's convinced of no God...Just as religious as someone convinced there is a god.
There are so many variations of atheism and not one can be defined as the standard, which is why people should explain what they mean, when stating they are atheists.
Learn the difference between positive atheism and negative atheism please, they are completely different. Most atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they just don't believe on exists ( negative atheism). Positive atheism is where you claim that there is no god, which is pretty much faith based.
Okay then, i'm an Atheist. But i believe that all religions should be given a fair chance. They should prepare a paper detailing their proposal, the thinking behind it and the evidence for it. They should then push to get this paper published in a reputable scientific journal, to be read and scrutinized by the community. If it is found that their theory holds up; that there are no errors in the methods used as proof, gaping holes in the thinking or unexplainable contradictions with currently accepted scientific 'knowledge' then they should be allowed to live on as popular scientific theories, with the same privileges as any other. This includes the freedom for others to debate it, and most certainly does not include the vast accumulation of wealth, extravagant buildings and specialized schools for indoctrinating children against the majority of accepted science. If they don't then they should call it a day and come up with a better theory.
That's what science is all about - coming up with as many ideas as possible, whittling away the rubbish until you're left with what can only be described as 'the truth'. In my mind the fact that we'll never actually get to that point makes it all the better. Anything pretending to be independent of these methods, or that the idea of eliminating bias does not apply to is counter to this, and such is counter to the progression of humanity. It only does so because it wouldn't last ten minutes as a 'proper' scientific proposal.
Most atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they just don't believe on exists ( negative atheism). Positive atheism is where you claim that there is no god, which is pretty much faith based.
What evidence? Please define a deity.
There is no evidence either way, a deity would fall totally out of scientific scope. How can you say there is no evidence, when you can't even define what a deity is.
A deity does not have to be linked to any religion.
Science is not all powerful, it is based on many assumptions and principles.
Even most religiuse people don't want faith to be encouraged with in the scientific model. That is just rideculus. But again the scientific model isn't the be all of end all.
Well, I have hardly seen any positive atheists around. Most of the famous atheists such as Dawkins, seem to be negative atheists and most people I have spoken to are negative atheists. Anecdotal evidence but it's the best I can do.Most people don't know the difference and very few people explain what they mean, so I'm not sure how you can say most are one and not the other.
A deity does not have to be linked to any religion.
You still can't define what one is, in reference to scientific model and how you would test for any such things you have defined.
So dictionary reference is useless, you still can't define a deity and if you can, you would win a Nobel prize.
Atheism is for lazy people.
Well, at least you have set the location in your profile to the correct place.Atheism is for lazy people.