Since you seem to like tackle philosofical questions, I feel that I must give you a fair warning. For all you know I could be an engineer, *gasp*. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1879#comic)
Lol, nice comic-strip. I would think that this actually the perfect basis for this discussion. I feel we are not even discussion philosophy at the moment but rather much theology.
Personally I couldn't care less about the bible, established churches and the face of god as we are "supposed to" believe in. There is really no point in trying to prove, disprove, disapprove, dis... a god like this, which is why I tried to come down to life-styling issues, personal experience etc. ... still a bit philosophical but much more down to earth imho.
When I say "Why not agnosticism?" in response to "Why atheism?" I mean to imply the next step of "Why so preoccupied with the established, given concepts of god? Why not search for oneself?"
All the same. If there's no evidence for it, then it makes no more sense to believe in it than to believe in anything else that has no evidence to support it (invisible pink unicorns, amorphous gods -you name it).
Sure the tooth fairy and reincarnation are both possible, but my point is that I'm not going to believe in reincarnation any more than I do in the tooth fairy, since I have the same amount of reason (evidence) to believe in either.
And how about the most micro possible level we could probably boil it down to:
Simple and personal "spiritual practices" and their effects on the human ... if you parallel reincarnation with the christian god fine. But what do you think about meditation, prayer etc. as a technique? Do you admit any kind of effect to those techniques? If yes, what are the qualities of those effects? Which name would you give them? ...
Thats not quite right Jangoo.
An atheist belives there is a God, no more than you or I believe that the core of jupiter is made of green cheese. Its nonsense, even though I have never studied or visited the core of Jupiter, I would be very suprised to find it edible. However, if 'proof' were made available to me that this was the case, I would undoubtably consider the evidence.
Apparently I am fully mistaken about the true meaning of atheism.
The question remains which type of proof you would need to believe.
I fully agree that the picture drawn of god and other divinities in books, scriptures etc. is most probably far off the "reality". For me, it is a given that humanity failed over the centuries to accurately recognize and portray the face of god for various reasons. Like I said, Santa Clause god doesn't matter to me at all.
So, if the depiction in works like the bible is a vague generalization at best and if religious belief is majorly grounded on highly individual experience ("When I pray I feel that ..."), how are you as an atheist ever going to be confronted with "convincing evidence"? There would hardly be anything to contrast a revelation with.
Hence my claim that a true atheist wouldn't acknowledge god if god smacked him right in the face because he is preoccupied with god as an institutional, political and scriptural concept.
He would probably go: "Hmyes that was weird, but there is no such thing as smacking-in-the-face in the bible so I don't really see why this was supposed to be god." ... See what I am saying?
Yes, atheist are a minority. But how did you come to a conclusion that there are atheist only in industrialized countries and that it is modern idea? Ancient greeks have had similar ideas.
I am saying that I focus on atheism as a
postmodern, western idea.
The greeks are supposedly the forefathers of the western thought and system. It's merely a matter of historical perspective imho. Just about anything has already been there at some point in time and yet any remake stands for itself as a special appearance in history. The line of thought I had here does indeed stress religion/atheism as a political issue. However, the larger societal circumstances and their impact on religious belief have always influenced the personal, micro-belief strongly:
Antiquity:
When some ancient greek philosophers suggested "atheism", they did so because it was a political issue for them: The depictions of the gods were merely in place to ensure the established power-relations. On a philosophical/spiritual level they motioned that the faces of the gods were ridiculous and couldn't possibly parallel the spiritual reality.
God or not, these greek philosophers stressed an empowerment of the human being by introducing concepts like the free will. Having discarded the gods did not mean to give up searching for truth for them. Among several other notions they seeded western scientific thought. Their belief was grounded on self-enlightenment, the discovered principles of how the world works and the techniques to discover further became the motor of their pursuit.
Modernity:
When the Nazis established their "atheist" empire, they did so because this also was to mark a historical turningpoint, a new world-order. Religion got the boot as a possible counter-force and because it contradicted the self-empowerment of a supreme people, a people that should show it's dominance without outside or divine assistance. Here already, the dimensions of society became a bit too large to unite a people without a common belief-system. A fanatic, quasi-religious system was installed that featured religious symbology and a god-like leader on top of the pack.
Postmodernity:
The hallmark of postmodernity is detachment from anything that is unifying and collective. It is called post-modernity because meaningful (modern) collectives such as the Nazi-empire are supposedly overcome. Modernity overcame obsolete collectives and their belief systems such as the large churches, postmodernity overcame modern collectives and their belief systems.
The individuals freedom of choice and it's self-empowerment is once again in focus here. At the same time, a typical postmodern problem is that very detachment from a meaningful larger order. The result is a variety of newly established belief-systems since everybody has an urge to belong. Among those are: New religions, dedication to the democratic institutions, the quest for scientific knowledge, the quest for money, retreat to the core family, occupation with specialized niche-fields (gaming-communities e.g.) etc. ... The possible fields here are limitless and most people live a blend of several fields.
I view atheism as a nowadays phenomenon that accompanies an occupation within several of those fields: The postmodern being is a patchwork entity that attempts to define itself. Atheism is fashionable within that patchwork because it echoes human self-empowerment, individualism and a search for meaning outside the obsolete powerstructures of the church.
All that said, postmodernity and the respective lifestyling-blend is really a truly western phenomenon that only slowly spreads across the globe now. The specific place current educated atheism (as we are discussing it here!) has is therefore indeed within that postmodern, western framework.
Your underlying thesis is rather weird, since you've implied that you don't have such faith yourself and yet see it as necessary. 
I would say that my underlying thesis is rather much common ground in just about any possible discussion I can imagine. The priviledged human is more or less defined through his striving which is propelled by his beliefs.
Also, I didn't say anything about my faith yet other than that I would view myself as "omni-spiritual" however weird that actually sounds.
Just to be clear on that now: I consider myself as a good example for a disrooted postmodern being. I am having trouble to take faith in the human achievement, e.g. I could hardly dedicate my life to world-peace and the respective institutions because that would make me feel like Don Quixote. I also do enjoy my everyday experiences quite a bit like you airframe, however I often find myself wondering if enjoying stuff is really all there is to it. The inevitable end of all things, be it a day in the sun with my girl or a sucessful and fun conference at work, makes me sad here. I do not take definite faith in a specific higher being. However, I have practiced meditation for years and experienced conditions that cannot be described or compared to e.g. "feeling good about a day in the sun with your girl". These conditions haven't always been comforting but just about always enlightening. Therefore, I take a general "omni-spiritual" faith in something beyond the obvious. I do advise anybody to forget about "the church" for once and pick up a spiritual journey of whatever kind for himself. Imho the best place to start it is not a scripture or a heated theological discussion but a spiritual technique which one should choose to ones liking while choosing the teachers of your preference.
Are you familiar with one exquisite teapot, Bertnand Russel's teapot?
[...]
When you suggest to think about divine beings seriously, we do also have to take the celestial teapot into consideration. It is equal to the god you describe, and so is the invisible pink unicorn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
Now I am. That reminds me of that official religion of the great spaghetti-monster.
While Russel certainly has a point here, it remains once again within that very limited "rationality + logic" framework which doesn't get you anywhere other than enabling you to say: "I don't have to believe in stuff like this."
Interestingly enough, the teapot doesn't even claim any relevance for a humans live. If it doesn't advise me to do or not do stuff, if it doesn't claim any impact on me whatsoever, why would I even care about it?
Divine concepts (or better yet: the institutions that promote them) claim that impact very often which is why it is worth to talk about them and to "take them seriously".
And once again:
I am not describing or defending any specific type of god here. I believe you are adressing the wrong person or are mistaking me for someone else ... a faithful christian missionary maybe? *shrug
