I am an agnostic. I cannot prove (using reason and evidence) either that there is or that there is not any God.

I believe in macro-scale causality: That the statistical integration of quantum phenomena always represent measurable and predictable effects from a measurable cause. (Yes, I believe in quanta, mesons, neutrinos, atoms, photons, and other “things” that are only “seen” by their effects and are predicted by mathematical models.)

I believe in the scientific process, that the result of carefully measured, reasoned, recorded and verified experience is, will continue to lead to, the best possible understanding of the physical universe. That is, what it is, how it was, came to be, and will become.

I ultimately believe that the majority of the world population would rather give up their lives than their invisible friends, especially if so inspired by religious leaders.

http://www.socyberty.com/Religion/Mere-Atheism-Why-Atheism-Is-No-More-Valid-Than-Religion.38981

Atheism, at its core, has the belief that there is no god or gods. Now, atheists assert that this is not a belief system, as such, and certainly it is not a belief system in the way that religions have a belief system, but it is a belief and not a provable fact. While it is true that there is no evidence for a god or gods, there is also no evidence to the contrary. This argument rages where the religious argue against the atheists that there is no evidence contradicting the existence of god or gods and the atheists shouting back that you can not prove a negative. This is a pointless exercise and does neither side any good. I believe, that it is fair to say that neither side is sure and we have to leave it at that.

In their own way, some atheists are as vicious as their antithesis, the religious. They ridicule and laugh at the religious in that smug self assured way of theirs and demand that the religious “grow up”…

But it takes extremists to allow moderates to claim to be moderate. Every bell curve needs its flanges.

“(a scienceblogger) apparently has had it up to here with Myers’s brand of anti-faith rhetoric, and started one of those neverending comment wars on his blog yesterday — except that he did end it by removing the post. Fortunately, I saved a copy first because the exchange really does get to the heart of the question. ”

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/07/science_religion_atheism_and_p.php?

“When I wanted my little city council to stop including prayer in their monthly meetings, I didn’t write a letter noting that “Whereas prayer is a product of people who are ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies….” Instead I wrote about the First Amendment’s Establishment clause and noted that a comparable town ended up paying $55,000 in legal fees when they lost their attempt to hold onto prayer during their council meetings. It seems to have worked, as city council meetings in Saluda, NC, no longer begin (or end) with a prayer.”

“Does this make me a “fundamentalist”? Some will doubtless say so. And there is one sense in which I will accept this charge: I am a truth fundamentalist. I believe that the truth is superior to error, that the truth should be pursued above all things, and that we should uncompromisingly defend the truth once we have discovered it (and it can be discovered, though not everyone who thinks they have done so is correct). I am unapologetic about this position. This places me in contrast to people who apparently feel that other values, such as not hurting people’s feelings, take precedence over the truth. I am proud not to be among those people.”

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/04/on-atheist-fundamentalism.html

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/so_what_should_we_ornery_athei.php