A question for the Atheist?

No, I consider myself an atheist based on my own instincts and feelings. I make no positive claims to know that a god does not exist; I just say I don't believe that any god exists. I suppose it is possible, but not based on any measurement we can utilize now. I also fail to understand who this is important to anyone - you have your beliefs and I respect those beliefs and I have my non-belief and I should be respected as well. There is no need for us to constantly argue with each other especially when no one wants to be convinced otherwise.

"Do you consider yourself an atheist based on a scientific stand point?"

No. I'm an atheist (which is someone who lacks belief in gods) because there's no evidence to show there's any such thing as a god.

"Being agnostic would have more of a scientific bases [sic]..."

No, it doesn't. Claims without supporting evidence *should* be ignored, they have no merit. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that an "atheist" believes or claims there is NO god of any kind...that's not correct. However, officially agnosticism DOES make a claim -- that we humans cannot ever know whether there's a god or not. Since it's not possible to know what we will or won't know in the future, that claims is unsupportable.

I simply don't accept YOUR claim (and those of others) that there IS a god, because you can't show any evidence to back it up. That's all. It's the same way I deal with all claims -- if there's no evidence to show they're correct, I don't accept them. Simple, consistent, and no claims made.

Peace.

That's not really how I look at things. Science has provided many answers about how the natural world functions - everything from the creation of stars and the formation of planets, to the evolution of organisms on Earth. Most of this coming in the last 150 years or so. While I acknowledge there are many things we still don't know or understand, I don't feel there is any reason to presume those answers require "god". I don't even consider "god" as a possible explanation because I believe the answers we seek are to be found in science.

Your position depends on a person thinking the idea of god is equally as likely as the idea of no god. The balance of scientific evidence is tilted heavily against such an argument. There is not one shred of evidence to support the idea of god, yet there is a mountain of evidence to show how the natural world functions - apparently without divine intervention.

"if so then your making a claim of ignorance because science has not proved or disproved the existence of a higher order of existence or God"

There are countless things that science has not disproven. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim of somethings existence. There is no reason to be more or less agnostic to the notion of God than fairies and unicorns. Both have 0 evidence to support their existence, and neither have been empirically disproven.

I'm athiest because I have absolutely no reason to believe in God or a higher being. I would say many athiests are agnostic in the sense that if they did have proof of God's existence or had some reason to believe in God, then they would.

But your logic doesn't really make sense. Think about it this way. Do you believe that there are invisible gnomes following you around everywhere? You (and most people) probably don't. Well, their existence hasn't been proven or disproven. So does that mean if you believe invisible gnomes don't exist, you really aren't following science?

For some people, including myself, the existence of a God is just as far out there as the existence of invisible gnomes.

I call myself an atheist because the evidence is not there for any deities, but that is short hand. I am an agnostic since the existence/non-existance of a deity is unprovable to date, but I live my life as an atheist. Why go through all that explanation everytime someone asks if I believe in deities and other spooky stuff?

yeah i dont know how the universe began

In 2000 years maybe todays scientists theories may end up looking as primitive as the creationist theory looks today.

But the difference is there wont be Hawkinists

or big bang theorists

Science evolves

I say todays theories will not exist in 2000 years but they will be the seed from which the theories (or possibly facts) of the Future are grown

That's the difference between science and creationism

Science changes and evolves

Creationism just remains the same

Like a child with his hands over his ears going "Na na na not listening"

Scientists WANT new information

they want new facts to come to light even if it proves something they always believed true

wrong

Nor has science proved or disproved the existence of leprechauns, yet few sane people would call me ignorant for saying, "I do not believe in leprechauns".

Gnosticism has to do with knowledge, not belief. Theism has to do with belief. I am an agnostic atheist in that, obviously, I don't "know", but I do not have any belief in a deity. Christians are agnostic theists in that they don't "know" but they have a belief in a deity.

~Ex-fundie-xian; agnostic atheist

I consider myself an atheist based on the rational viewpoint that a claim should be accepted as true when provided evidence supporting it. That statement does not apply to any god.

I am agnostic because I believe there is no way to know for sure if there is a god.

I am atheist because I have take the information out there and formed my own opinion that there is no god. I don't know for sure but it is my opinion. It is not ignorant to form an opinion.