From the American Heritage Dictionary:

</li>
When I used the term I was referring to the first two definitions. You do not have to match all possible definitions of a word when using it in a sentence. I would say that the quote which I had referenced adequately displayed a strong belief in something without proof. That is, unless Vanneto has died and has seen what happens. The idea I was pushing is that neither side has evidence that they are right.

Again from the American Heritage Dictionary:

</li>

As I had always understood it, and which the dictionary seems to back me up on, by saying that you are an atheist you are saying that you specifically believe there are no gods. How can you say that this is not a belief lacking evidence? Do you have evidence that there are no gods?

@Harry Carey:
What we have here is a difference in terminology.

I certainly put trust in science, for experiments I haven't performed, results I haven't personally witnessed. In that sense, I have faith, in the people that performed the experiments and made the observations, and the people who checked their work and subjected it to critique.

So I take it back. Yes, I do have faith. I'm not sure if that's the same sort of faith we're talking about with the supernatural, though. The faith I put into a hair product not burning off all my hair is evaluated immediately. Science thrives on experimentation, but religion you can only evaluate after you're dead, and therefore unable to share any result.

It might be a little misleading to call that sort of evaluable faith, "faith". Even for one-shot stuff like experimental drugs, there is some data such as the fact that the drug companies don't make money off of killing their customers, doctors generally don't try to kill their patients, etc...

Still, just like with the experimental drug, none of us patients were there when the drug was being created and tested, so we're more or less free to make our own decision. Myself, I'm not about to make any assertion on it, positive or negative, without evidence, so I'm sticking with the default position.

The one leap of faith I make is accepting that what I witness (while in my right mind, at least) is reality, and that the other people I encounter share a similar experience. I must accept it, or else go insane and create my own reality.

As for the definition of atheism, see http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/defining.htm

Or:

An atheist can have belief (even a belief that there is no God/Gods), but it's not a prerequisite to join the club.

I, personally, am what you'd call an agnostic atheist or a weak atheist. I don't believe in God, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Zeus, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster because I haven't seen any evidence. If I did, I'd accept it.

~~~

Edit: Hah, check out the first article in the Common Myths about Atheism and Atheists section...

Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith

Uh... welcome to a.cc?

I'd just like to add that the geographical poles have special significance as well. They define the axis of the earth's rotation. So north and south aren't completely arbitrary. (although, which one we choose to put on the top of our maps is completely arbitrary.)

I still disagree about QM saying that stuff doesn't have properties until they are observed. Actually, as it turns out, I'll probably be giving a talk at uni about quantum computing at the end of next week. In that talk I'd cover some of the subtleties that we're talking about; because those subtleties are vital for understanding what a QC can or can't do. For a start, if these things were only probabilities, then a QC would be no more useful than a classical (non-quantum) computer. In my field of research, I find it much more useful to discard the idea of a "wave function collapse" and instead just use the idea that "measurement" is the quantum system becoming entangled with me.

As for "finding what binds particles together in quantum entanglement"; I don't feel like that is really a meaningful quest. Quantum entanglement is just a normal everyday part of quantum mechanics. Why quantum mechanics is real (or not real, as the case may be) is an interesting philosophical question, but I feel that at this stage it isn't a scientific one.

I've got two more things I'd like to comment on:
1) Mathematics is not really "just a theory". Everything in maths is absolutely true. It is defined to be so. Maths is never ever ever wrong. A proof is a proof and a theorem is a theorem - that means they are always correct (unless someone actually stuffed up their calculations). The only uncertainty in maths appears when we try to apply it to the real world. For example: 2+2=4, always, that's pure maths and so it is unquestionably true. But 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples; that is not pure maths any more. We are now talking about physical things, apples, and so this is a physical theory may need to be tested.

2) It is true that people "have faith" in science. There is no proof that says science is the way to find truth in the world. There is no theorem that says the the laws of the universe are not just completely random, or even designed to confuse us. But science does have a lot to back it up. Unlike many other belief systems, science is able to make useful testable predictions about the world. Science apparently works. I have faith that my microwave will heat my food, and that my bicycle we go faster if I peddle faster, and that my light bulb will turn on when I flick the switch - not because I believe in microwaves, bikes, and light bulbs; but because I have faith in science.

If the metric expands then light that is past us and is moving away from us is still further past us and is still moving away?

ed. I guess the question is, does light stay in the same space that is expanding, if not then the speed of light would constantly be affected by this metric change.

Thanks, Bob.

It's not the same as faith. A preacher once tried to argue that to me. He said that it's faith to believe that when you drop an apple it will fall towards the Earth. It's not that I have faith that it will fall. I know it will fall. I've never seen or heard of a case where the apple didn't fall (assuming the experiment is carried out correctly) and until I see the apple not fall it's proven to fall. For that reason, I know as well as anybody knows anything that the apple will fall. I am far more sure the apple will fall than any Christian can be sure there is a God. Why? Because I've seen the apple fall many times before. No Christian can honestly say they've seen God.

You're twisting it. it would be fairer to say you can't honestly say you've seen gravity. You can't lecture other people on what they've seen either. I don't know any Christians that have "seen God" but I know many who have seen and experienced some extraordinary stuff (and have been in that boat myself). I'm not going into details because we've done that thread and all people do is yell at me for it (since, you know, they're such experts). But back to the issue; yes, a lot of science is faith. I have faith in electrons. I have faith black holes exist. I have faith in a lot of scientific stuff that not one person here can give me a lick of concrete proof for (like the stuff on the page in gnolam's first post), but would call me a fool for not believing in. That's just how it is.

I need a reason not to be able to do it, since it became relevant to the discussion. The metric expansion of space is interesting and I guess that's one reason why people don't believe in empty space outside the universe (although really "empty" space in our universe is hardly empty with all the light, radiation, dark energy, etc supposedly out there so maybe outside the universe is just a lack of that) but almost everything about that seems based on speculation so it's rough convincing myself to care.

I don't know why people always get hung up playing with words.

The theistic argument that "atheists have faith too" is just missing the point. Of course atheists have faith in scientists in a similar way that religious people have faith in religious leaders. But who cares?

You have to follow the chain of faith to the end point. Ultimately, theists have faith that a god exists without scientific, testable proof. You might have anecdotal or circumstantial evidence, but you cannot test god. And more importantly, you cannot prove god to be false.

There is a stark contrast between "knowing God exists" and "knowing an apple will fall toward the ground." The former is a feeling you have; you have faith that God exists because of things you've seen. If one good, "unexplainable" thing happens, you feel that it is proof that God exists. But if a hundred bad, "unexplainable" things happen, you don't quit believing in God. There is no way for someone to disprove God to you. That is faith.

Regarding the latter, you can believe that an apple will fall toward the ground due to gravity. And you will always believe it to be true until someone proves otherwise. Even with less trivial examples (say electrons), the same thing is true; there is scientific reasoning behind believing they exist, and if someone proves it to be false, you'll stop believing it. That is not the same kind of faith as in the previous paragraph.

So to say "atheists have faith too" is just a stupid statement that doesn't make a religious faith any more "scientific" or credible.

Obviously if the experiment is contaminated then the results may vary, but that doesn't change the fact that gravity is still pulling on the apple (and the Earth) and that is a proven fact. Could it theoretically change? Yes. Does that make it any less correct? No.

See, Matthew? You are no God.

Since we seem to have trouble distinguishing science and faith, please consult the following flowchart:

{"name":"2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/0\/50439e94a3eb5b905e09a4de3fa77b28.png","w":894,"h":700,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/0\/50439e94a3eb5b905e09a4de3fa77b28"}

It's a meaningless question because they're oxymorons. There's nothing about what I'm asking that's an oxymoron, except some people are taking for granted that it is anyway. I'm just curious why. I'm assuming it must be an oxymoron in some way for some speculated part of the wider theory to be true, but I was hoping someone could elaborate.

The former I'll grant you since you can't experiment on God so it's neither here nor there, but saying "no effect" is moronic, since you know well and good that you can't prove a negative. And 100% of known history is based on "word of people"; I don't see whining about that ...

Where is this documented, anyway? More dumb trolling ...

Anyway, I'm going to QFT Matthew here and leave. Religion shouldn't even be coming into this ....