Indeed. I consider myself an agnostic theist as well as a Hindu. I believe that god exists but don't claim knowledge.

Name one piece of evidence... If its all around me, direct me, please.

What the frick are you on about 'facts have no value under atheism'? Facts are what CAUSES atheism.

Indeed, and the fact that one atheist state practices censorship doesn't mean that they all do. Moreover, China has a history of censorship, it was doing so even when it was a religious country, at least under the Ming and Qing. Both of them weren't keen on outside influences.

Atheists, or in a broader sense skeptics in general. have beliefs that are based upon demonstrable claims and evidentiary support. Theist views on the other hand, are based on appeals to emotion, unverifiable claims made by texts writted by bronze age lunatics and arguments from ignorance.

Let me put it this way... Religion requires faith, and faith is beliefe in somthing for no good reason. Personally I'd rather base my beliefes on things that I have good reason to believe in.

How does one claim to be "agnostic theist" AND a Hindu?????

I'm by no means attributing quantum entanglement and black holes to proof of God, I'm just saying they make no sense to us. They break the laws of everything we thought we knew.

I disagree. While faith does not require definite proof, it does need something to start the belief. Nobody believes in something for no reason. Even if it is because they've only been told that is how it is. A personal belief can be a lot stronger than the facts. A person can ignore facts just to keep believing. Faith is very powerful, and would not have that power if a person woke up one morning and just decided to believe in something.

I believe in a higher power simply because I am a conscious being. I don't offer that as proof, but it kick starts my faith. I believe that this higher power built the universe based on a set of rules, also known as physics, like it programmed a computer. It then gave us intelligence and consciousness. It tried to teach us what it could and, in the end, decided to let us find our own way. I believe this all because there are many different religions around the world and, while different, deal with similar things, often in a metaphorical way. I don't much care for following specific scriptures as they are often contradictory, even amongst the same religion. I follow my own moral code and if God doesn't like it, then screw Him.

Many atheists just don't understand what it's like to have faith and believe people are idiots for doing it, but if we take the theological aspect away and apply it to more earthbound examples, it might help. Take patriotism for example. Many people believe that their country is the best for no other reason than they were born in it. They don't have hard facts to support their faith, and even when America is clearly invading another country, many citizens are still adamant that they live in the best country in the world. Call them idiots if you like, but with that in mind, can you honestly say that everything you support is based solely on hard evidence?
What about morality? There are many different schools of thought on this one, but it wouldn't be so diverse if there was definite proof of how to behave. You may think it is wrong to kill somebody with a birth defect, but a Klingon would do it in an instant. Your argument would be that everyone deserves a chance to live. Martok would say that it is cruel to have somebody live a limited life. Both views require a belief and both have good reasons, but neither is definite. Extend this example to the world of religion and it gets more epic, but the basics are the same.

So, by raise of hands, how many here watched either video...?
Anyone...? Anyone...?
Didn't think so. You guys think your own discussions are much more enlightened I guess.
At least Pavel tried to watch them...

I've been having bandwidth problems lately, so I haven't watched the one between John Lennox and Peter Atkins very far though, but I did watch the one between Dr. Craig and Dr. Harris at Notre Dame, to the Q&A anyway. My assessment of that debate was that it was very L-shaped: Dr. Craig was going after Dr. Harris' claims and inconsistencies in the book, and instead of fighting back with much direct effort, Dr. Harris must have realize that he was beat, so he decided to focus the remainder of his efforts in doing battle with the audience...the Notre Dame audience. His basis for atheist "morality" exactly what Dr. Craig said it was: a set of axioms with no actual authority...and this is very similar to what I've said about it in the past. One can believe that God doesn't exist, but they can't claim that anything such as morality is anything more than a human construct, and therefore it is relatively meaningless. Moral Relativism...gets you every time. I have seen very, very few atheists with the integrity it takes to admit this fact.

If you feel comfortable believing in things because they make you feel good, rather than believing in things because they are provable, then thats up to you. I was merely stating how I construct my personal belief system.

Also, yes, everything that I absolutley believe in is because they're either self evident, or I've taken the time to do some research and let the information convince me. Don't get me wrong, I'm open minded about a lot of things (including god), but until I'm presented with reason to, I'm not going to accept as reality. Belief is a strong word, I don't bandy it about and use it to classify ideas lightly.

Morals don't require faith, they require personal definitions of right and wrong. Somthing that is only useful to the person constructing them.

Well said, Doctor!!!

If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God exists, it follows that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Such a God would have the power to make the best decision(s), whatever they were.
Such a God would have the will to make the best decision(s).
Creating the best possible world would be the best decision (among the possible decisions of what world to create).
Ergo...

Leibniz recognized this much, and was one of the only theists consistent enough to accept the entailment that we live in the best of all possible worlds.

For multitudes upon multitudes of reasons, I am reluctant to believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds. This is the main reason why I'm an atheist.

Sure. If the God that exists is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent(?). But what if it's not? What if God is a bastard? Doesn't mean He doesn't exist. I've said it before and I'll say it again, questionable motives do not disprove something.

if some level of free will was in God's best decision then it undermines your argument: God tried to do the right thing and give us free will and once
we had it we didn't listen to his good intentions and created evil ourselves: this fits into the Bible story where Adam and Eve disobey God while
living in the best possible world (Eden)

there can be no proof that God doesn't exist just like there can be no proof of the creation of the Universe: even if we can create a pre-Universe
and create our own Universe in that Universe we can't do so from nothingness... we'd do so from our own Universe and hence can't prove how
the Universe started fully... in the same way... God is a complex system which we can't explain either... anything we apply to the creation of the
Universe can be applied to the creation of God and vice versa

God's traits were also pretty much created by the Greeks in their philosophies about God's nature ... we can't use lack of those forces to disprove
anything since that would be a strawman argument

Atheists,you don't understand what I was talking about.
Actually,when there are enough non-religious people in your country,you would understand why Atheism claims to care about facts while in fact don't value facts at all.

This is the Orwellian problem.
If you are Atheist,you would find out that your own life is more important than facts.
Then when you are threatened with death,you would claim that 2+2=5.
That's why I said these.