Several years ago during one of the flare ups between theists and atheists on this site I wrote the diary below which was well received albeit by a limited audience. I thought I'd publish again given recent activity on the site. As I state below it is not an attempt to convince others of a particular world view but rather an encouragement towards clarity in communication and actual attempts to understand (which does not equate with agreement) the 'other side' rather than simply talking past them which is the case in way too many of these diaries.
First some stuff about me, because you know, nothing is more important than that. I am an atheist (I will explain exactly what I mean by that below). However I have never really had any personal negative interactions involving religion and the religious people I have known in my life have tended to be unconventional, tolerant, and even, dare I say it, intellectual. So this, plus my own natural disposition, has lead me to a rather bland middle of the roadedness which will probably put you all to sleep before long. In reality (whatever you take that phrase to mean) I don't tend to 'get' people who get really worked up about these kinds of issues. I see abstract reasons why they are important but I don't take in personally.
So, if anyone is still reading, my goal in writing this diary is not to persuade anyone that my own conception of the True Nature of the Universe is correct. Rather I want to point out a number of places where misunderstanding seems to arise and how some clarity of expression on the part of posters and a certain amount of not jumping to conclusions on the part of responders might lead to more fruitful conversations if not a spontaneous rendition of 'I'd like to teach the world to sing.'
Let's start with a glossary and go from there. I am using the terms as I have seen them defined by scholars several times. I am aware that they are often used in somewhat different ways but I like these definitions but they are broad and can be used consistently to cover a wide range of actual positions.
Atheist: a person who doesn't believe in any gods. It is important to note that a lack of belief does not mean an active disbelief. In other words most atheists will not claim that they are certain there are no gods. Many believers have a different impression because of statements that atheists make. In these conflict the disagreement is actually over where the burden of proof lies although this is seldom made explicit. See the section below.
Agnostic: Many atheists regard agnosticism as a wishy washy school of thought held by those too cowardly to be real atheists. Agnosticism is actually a different thing entirely, a belief about the possibility of knowledge of a god. Agnosticism states that it is not possible to know the nature of a god or even if there is a god. It is quite possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist.
On a personal note I like thinking of myself as an agnostic rather than an atheist even though technically I am both. There are two reasons for this. One, as an empirically oriented scientist, it seems quite obvious to me, that disproving the existence of a divine being is impossible and that no compelling evidence for a divine being is known. The second is that 'not knowing' is more romantic and mysterious, than simply not believing and adds some glamour to my drab and wretched life.
Religious Belief - The belief that there is more to the universe than what we can observe. Beyond this it is impossible to specify. Religious beliefs can be atheistic, believe in single gods or many, anthropomorphic gods or gods that are completely inhuman, and so on. Beliefs can be rigid and absolute, metaphorical and fluid, etc. The evidence of human history is that religious belief is enormously common and enormously variable.
Burden of Proof - I think most conflicts about religion on this site (not so much in the wider public sphere) fall into this category. In the absence of any definitive evidence for or against the existence of the supernatural (in any form) what is the default position? Most atheists would argue, that in the absence of any positive evidence for the existence of god, the logical conclusion is that the existence of a god is unlikely. Therefore they are going to assume that there are no gods although they will not be likely to claim this as an absolute certainty. In contrast the believer tends to assume that a god/gods/the supernatural is reasonably likely and accepts that as the default position.
I find the atheist burden of proof assumption persuasive, which should not be surprising as I have already defined myself as an atheist. However I also can't understand getting worked up by the fact that someone sees the burden of proof falling out somewhat differently.
So I am now going to annoy people on both sides and pick on what I see as common flaws in arguments made in these 'discussions'
1) Ignoring empirical evidence and diversity when discussing religious beliefs. Atheism is supposed to be based on science and reason and yet I keep hearing statements that ignore both the vast diversity of religious thought and the vast diversity of religious believers. No, it is not impossible to be a scientist and believe in god - empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise. No, not all religious believers are mentally ill - given the sheer number of religious believers throughout history that is clearly a ridiculous statement.
2) Asking for 'respect' for one's religious beliefs. This generated a lot of comments and I haven't read all of them. It is important to think carefully about what the word respect means and to what the respect is being applied. As a person, each individual, whether believer or unbeliever, should be treated with respect and not abused. However religious beliefs are ideas and, in many cases, cultural traditions, which leads us into thornier waters (I know that is a ridiculous metaphor but it popped into my head and I had to write it down). Clearly religious beliefs that are used to attempt to sway events in society as a whole should be subject to the same critical review as any other ideas. I'll give a couple of examples. First the assertion that a human being is created at conception. A separate existence of an entity that is biologically human certainly occurs at that time. However that entity consists of a single cell with no more of the properties (actually fewer) that we would ascribe as human than an amoeba. I don't see any reason to accept this religious assertion.
Other religious assertions, such as helping the poor, might be ones in which I agree with the goal although I think the evidence for a religious argument for this point is nonexistent. If I was forced to choose between a Randian argument for the value of selfishness and the argument that we should help the poor because god says so I would be in a devil of a pickle. I don't agree with the former but at least some sort of argument based on evidence can be made. I agree that the poor should be aided although I think that the argument that it should be done because some greater force wants it done is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
So what does 'respect' mean? I certainly respect the right of anyone to believe anything they want. However that doesn't mean that I need to be silent in my disagreement, especially if I feel that the advocacy of said belief will be detrimental. If I agree with your conclusion but disagree with your reasons for holding it I probably won't say much of anything except thanks for the help. I find this to be actually somewhat of an awkward situation. Agreeing with someone who comes to the same conclusion as you for unsupportable reasons opens up the door for opposition based on the same unsupportable reasons. If god is unknowable you can argue for his support for any position. I'm not arguing for not accepting help from the religious, just that I think religious arguments for taking action are not supportable. On the other hand I don't see the need to be unnecessarily unpleasant about any disagreement - forceful yes, disagreeable no.
3) The idea that religion must be defeated in order to make social progress. The evidence from human history is that great horrors proceed not from supernatural thinking but from dogmatism and tribalism. Communism and naziism were not religious beliefs but they were fundamentalist and tribalist. These seem to be common themes in human history and I am inclined to view religious belief as a catalyst rather than the prime factor.
4) All that I've written so far pertains to discussions on dkos where the combatants are likely to have similar views outside of the strictly religious sphere. Religious conflict in the broader political sphere is very different. The religious might do well to remember that atheists are are essentially invisible in the broader public discourse and many find that frustrating. Our supposedly secular civil society has religious elements throughout. So it might be good to view the venting from that perspective. Also the atheists might think about religion a bit more empirically and realize that believers on dkos are probably a subset with somewhat different characteristics than those they encounter in their day to day lives. Given that you are arguing about 'life, the universe, and everything' shouldn't you try and step out of your own personal perspective and look at the bigger picture?