I think if there were people that claimed something without evidence then they may not necessarily be atheist.  But not all atheists are rational either.  I wrote somewhere else on here about some supposed atheists I know that claim to feel a oneness with all living things.  An energy flow.  I told this girl that told me this that I have never heard of any evidence for this.  But she says she just knows it because she feels it.  She explained that if I die my life force leaves my body and gets consumed by surrounding life. (I envision mercury how when it is separated it will come together on it's own when layed close by).  I think she's just trying to sound poetic.  At any rate, I am an atheist, and I really don't accept anything on a leap of faith.  "Just believe."-That bugs the crap outta me.

Well, let me rationalize this connection with all living things. I wouldn't believe it to be a connection with all living things, but with all intelligence. However, since science has not been able to create a truly thinking entity on a computer, it could very well be said to be a connection with all living things.

I'm a computer science student, and I've recently taken up an interest in artificial intelligence. Let's say one wanted to create an AGI, the best place to start has always been to look at the simplest example and expand upon it. I decided to think about one experiment that I remembered about from my 10th grade biology class.

An amoeba is a very simple lifeform that is known to be able to detect light. Put an amoeba under a light and it will generally stop in its path until you turn off the light for a while. At first this reaction will grow longer for each interval you flash the light on the amoeba, but eventually the amoeba will move while the light is still on. Using different intensities will also modify the response time. The explanation for this reaction is called psychological homeostasis, a tendency to maintain a balanced state that is optimal for functioning.

There is a native state of input (no light), and a native state of output (moving). This is what is in the mind of an amoeba. All of a sudden we introduce a new element, light. It doesn't know what the light is, but it knows that something changed. In its mind are its previous state of input, and a new state of input. Because there is such limited reference in an amoeba, the state of input and the state of output are strongly linked while there are no new elements introduced. When the new element, light, was introduced, the amoeba's psychological homeostasis was interrupted, and therefore it stopped. The only way to explain the change in behavior is by reflex to an interruption of psychological homeostasis. Reflexes can also be used to explain human development. (http://www.lpch.org/diseasehealthinfo/healthlibrary/newborn/behrefx.html)

As the light is continually beamed on/off, the amoeba's thought process will attempt to connect the perception thought to a response thought. Because of this initial attempt to connect the thought, the amoeba uses more energy, explaining the initial increase in the amount of time it doesn't move. Such reactions can also be seen in a human's thought process. Let's look at Tetris as an example (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.05/tetris.html).

Now, there is a connection between all living things. Living things exist because of reproduction. All living things on Earth share the same native state of perception and behavior. I lied about native states earlier. Every life form's native state of perception? NULL. Every life form's native state of behavior? Reproduction. The truth is that the amoeba doesn't have all its own thoughts, but it also has the thoughts of the amoeba before it, and the amoeba before that, and so on (an amoeba asexually reproduces). The amoeba may have seen light before in some form, but it was far from its current period of psychological homeostasis.

Before I go on, somebody tell me, how many dimensions in this universe do you believe you can perceive?

Oh also, for what you were stating above. There is a leap of faith for both atheists and God believers. Atheists believe there is no God despite a reasonable lack of evidence that he doesn't. Believers of God believe there is a God despite a reasonable lack of evidence that he does. The default position is lack of perception, just like the beginning of all living things. However, the evolution of perception gives God quite a reason to exist. First, according to Albert Einstein, everything is relative. This is very true, especially for perception. What do we perceive as large or small? it's all relative to every other thing, and we associate relative visual identifications (letters) and verbal identifications (spoken words) with certain things. We associate everything that is happening with nothing? or everything? What do we call everything? God. Or at least that's how many scientists look at it.

I said leap of faith, not faith.  Your religious definition for faith actually means leap of faith, by the way. And I was talking about how all living things are connected because of what someone else said.

thanks a lot HD, that really helped me.

Einstein was a theist.

If we didn't believe in something until we were given a reason to believe, we wouldn't have reason. All experiments begin with a hypothesis. The result isn't always the same. We have to take a leap of faith that a pattern is real and that the sun isn't going to miss its appearance for dawn the next day.

 Also, I believe the lack of effort to understand is called apathy. Stop giving a bad name to atheists.

owned

If we didn't believe in something until we were given a reason to believe, we wouldn't have reason. All experiments begin with a hypothesis. The result isn't always the same. We have to take a leap of faith that a pattern is real and that the sun isn't going to miss its appearance for dawn the next day.

I'm almost tired of this, but I'm going to give it one more shot.  Every single belief we aquire is based on something we experience.  Period.  Hypotheses come from ideas that formed as a result of some experience(s).  We have a reasonable expectation that a pattern is real based on empirical evidence.   No faith required.

If you're going to claim that there is a belief that has absolutely no tie to the physical universe, you're going to have to pony up and tell us what this belief is.

An atheist does not believe in any god, so a baby who does not know of any gods would be considered an atheist by default. The label of atheism does not suggest a defiance or opposition to religion, only an absence of belief.

Dawkins said that religious groups label their children as their own religion, even though the child has yet to make that decision. A baby is not born believing in God, but later in life, when they can understand the concept, may believe, and likely will if their parents teach them to. It's what Dawkins calls "Childhood Indoctrination."

No. The best way I ever heard it explained was "it does not take a leap of faith to believe that the tides are not caused by giant undersea hamsters running on wheels while dressed in clown costumes. It would take a huge on to believe that was the case."

As I have always understood it, an atheist is a person without theistic beliefs, not necessarily someone who denies the existence of a god. As far as I know, there is no better word to describe the religious convictions, or lack thereof, of a small child, as it would be clearly incorrect to call them by their parents' religion (i.e. Christian Child, Jewish Child).

When it comes to people like us, we are atheists because we do deny the existance of a god, simply bacause we know of the concept. So, on the same note, you wouldn't exactly call all children atheists. Though, in technical terms, thats what they are.

Theism - belief in a god or gods.

Athesm - (A, meaning without) without theistic beliefs.

Although, according to dictionary.com, an atheist is someone who denies the existance of a god, but I do not think this is taking small children into consideration, as everyone else understands the concept of a god.

"I believe that a invisable purple snarfwidget makes kegs of beer for me under my bed"

IS NOT THE SAME AS

"Based on prior data we have collected we can resonably conclude the following"

Faith as religion sells it can sell anything. Just as it did when for over 3,000 years "faithfull" people believed in Egypt that Ra was real. The same "faith" causes people to believe in absurd things such as tarrot cards and Loc Ness"

Just as you reject the "faith" people have in reincarnation. 

Now, I suspect you are avoiding your personal claims. I'd like to know what spicific being by label and name you think did it?

That's not necessarily true, but it is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Regardless of the side of the fence upon which one falls, I always find the the co-opting of Einstein's belief to be quite entertaining.  Theists try to rope him into their camp...atheist try to bring him into theirs.  We have a multitude of telling quotes that create a subtle picture of his belief for those objectively seeking it.  Unfortunately, so many people just want to be right or win an argument that they pull quotes out of context or add along their own commentary as support for their belief.  Based on THE WHOLE of Einstein's attributed quotes, the best definition of his position would be that of a deist.

To say that he was a pantheist requires that he be atheistic.  This is terribly far from the case.

To some, you may have "owned," but in reality, you simply made an erroneous claim that is not based on the evidence we have at our disposal.  That doesn't seem very characteristic of a rational Silver Member.

Sorry, Einstein was an atheist. He had no belief in a personal god, nor saw the need for one to design and create the universe we live in.

You waltz into the thread, talk about how pathetic you find it when people label Einstein, and then proceed to promptly do so yourself. Hypocrite.

Besides, who gives a shit what Einstein believed?

Smart people can believe stupid things, and stupid people can hold intelligent ideas. 

I don't know, your friend's idea makes sense to me, from a scientific standpoint.  First law of thermodynamics, and all.  Also quantum physics seems to bear out a literal connection between all things.

However, "I just feel it" isn't a very logical standpoint. 

Yes. It is a fallacy of equivocation to conflate theistic, non contingent faith, with colloquial usages of the word 'faith' that are in fact references to contingent faith.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/doesnt_everyone_take_things_on_faith

Faith is belief without evidence, not proof.

I don't know that I will wake up in the morning. I have no proof of it. But I go to sleep with the assumption that I will wake up, evidenced by the many, many days that I have woken up prior, the fact that I don't have any life threating sicknesses that I know of, no enemies hellbent on my destruction that I know of, no dangerous hazards in my bedroom that I know of, etc.

But if I, say, believed that when I woke up I would find a million dollars in cash, neatly packed in a slick leather briefcase, at the foot of my bed, with no signs of forced entry into my house, without any evidence or reason to anticipate this happening, it would indeed by a matter of faith. No one that I know of has a million dollars that they want to give me. No one else that I know of has a key to my house. And I haven't won anything lately. 

See the difference? 

I always thought atheists couldn't have faith because we constantly change our opinion on the evidence or lack thereof. The 'faith' that Christians speak of is nothing more then an atheist taking an 'educated guess', and if conclusive evidence is brought foreward which disproves the original conclusion, then you go back to the drawing board, and change the opinion.

The Scienetific Lab Model.

Atheism does not require faith. Unless, of course, one requires faith NOT to believe in invisible garden banshees.