Good Satan PBUH, you are actually attacking science. Where does science include belief in its dogma, if anything nothing can be theoretical unless it can be disproven. You definitely need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
There must be some kind of reason to disbelieve. No there must be some kind of reason to believe, you don’t reason on no evidence, hence you don’t form value judgements on nothing, hence you don’t believe based on reason.
Humour it is not logical Captain. 
Although in any form of humour there is a grain of truth. 
Every good philosopher knows that science is a religion, every theory has to be verified by experimentation to be valid, experimentation thus becomes religion as it is the ultimate source of truth, like the bible for example.
There most be a reason to believe? no there most be a reason for everything, thus there most be a reason to disbelief. afterall any new information obtained is compared with the old information, then the judgement is made, is nothing is beleived then nothing will be thought the person will only absorb the information. it is quite simple I should not have to explain this in this thread. 
law of cause and effect there is a reason for everything, things just dont happen because yes.
So you dont believe based on reason? what do you define reason to be? how is it different from thinking?
I’m afraid vic is right on that one. As much as I have always admired and appreciated Science, it most definitely has fallen into being just another self-protecting/ego-centric religion, with ALL of the same appendages; evangelists, prophets, trickery, bribery, fundamentalism, worship, deceit, and socialist agendas necessitating wars under the guise of being The Only voice of Truth.
Quick question, when an atheist says s/he doesn’t believe in a god/deity, which god/deity doesn’t s/he believe in?–the creation god, any of the gods of the Christian trinity, the anthropomorphic god, the scientific god, the watchmaker god–there are lottsa gods out there, but I’ve only heard a-theists say they don’t believe in a Christian god. (A-theist–anti-theist)
Atheists generally don’t believe in any God which fits their definition of the word God – which usually amounts to something like “A conscious being that created the universe.” If you (idiotically) redefine God to mean “truth” or some other retarded definition…well, obviously most atheists believe in truth, lol, so if God is truth, sure, most atheists believe in God.
@vic: As for the idea that atheists are not open to the possibility of a God, I think that’s patently false. I think most atheists would believe in God if some set of evidence appeared that made the probability that God exists > 50%. I think most are open to the idea, they’re atheists not because they’re not open, but because their standards for belief haven’t been met. Villainizing atheists as “close-minded” is…well…close-minded of you. You don’t seem open to the possibility that atheism is a justified, rational position.
I am wondering where this “Truth is conscious” got the association with “idiocy”.
What makes the geniuses think that Truth is not conscious?
What a terribly false argument.
Religion: belief based on faith
Science: knowledge based on evidence in which the word truth is a meaningless value statement. Nothing is true, only provably false.
Let’s take an example, I know it is true that God exists because I have faith, faith by necessity of definition does not require any tangible evidence at all, it would cease being a belief if I knew God shopped at Asda every fortnight and several thousand shoppers independently confirmed God buys Carlsberg lager every two weeks, and hence I would no longer have faith or belief but evidence, knowledge of his existence, objectively verified by a consensus of consumers. Christianity would hence forth no longer be a faith it would be a well documented enquiry into God, or at least his predilection for lager. At this point philosophy would probably hand over the baton to science so that we could use less anecdotal means to ascertain Gods shopping habits and preference vis a vis alcohol. After all how consistent is just bumping into God every now and again every time you go shopping. In fact if it was a one off occurrence we could dismiss those cases as being purely anecdotal and even eventually undermine Gods existence at all. I mean he could be a fraud like Santa?
I know that gravity is always attractive. However should contrary evidence be produced that in fact, in whatever conditions, gravity can become repulsive I must either abandon the law of gravity as a theory, or modify it to take account of new evidence. Hence gravities veracity is based on its ability to be proven wrong, not the fact I have never observed anything to the contrary. Yeah sure sounds like a load of happy clappers to me.
Try shoe horning those two together.
Abandon your reason intelligent falling is the one true science! 
James just because everyone rejects your ideas about SR doesn’t mean there is some global conspiracy of scientist Illuminati. There’s conservatism in any field of knowledge, what makes science progressive is that you can make a bigger name overturning the consensus by far than you ever could supporting it. On the other hand instead of handing Nobel prizes to religious people for attempting to overturn thousand year old dogma, they tend to burn them and or all their followers, at least traditionally.
You’re listening to the wrong definition, as are all these supposed anti Christian atheists. Atheism isn’t the disbelief in a particular god it is the disbelief in deities, singular or plural. Hence Socrates could of been an atheist, despite Christianity not actually existing yet.
.
Alright, this is how I responded and after re-reading it, I can understand how you might have misconstrued my meaning.
And there is your kind - the one who chooses not to believe because yes it is more convenient for him, more comfortable for him, not to…
When I spoke of ‘your kind’, I was not referring to you as an atheist - I have no idea if you are one or not. What I was referring to was your statement that:
the athiest chooses not to believe because it is more convinient for him to do that, so its his ´heart´ who is deciding, it is simply that his “heart” has another direction.
I was agreeing with you…that there is that kind, too. We can come up with any number of reasons why one would be an atheist, agnostic, believer.
Hmmm…well, one can say that. But I still do not feel that one whose integrity is paramount to him/her necessarily senses or feels a ‘pleasure reward’. But I might be wrong here - I suppose it just depends on the individual him/her -self and their own brain patterns. 
One may do what they simply know they must - though they have the freedom not to, they still must. If their intentions are pure and clear, they may not feel a reward. And then they detach.
What is integrity to me…
Pure and simple, following what one knows will bring the utmost good both for their self and others guided by their heart and mind with compassion and logic…and not veering from that unless one sees that another way IS more logical and compassionate. Integrity is not always convenient for that person.
Unless I am misunderstanding your meaning here - wouldn’t you say that believing in something requires one to be open to the possibility of it? The believer takes it a step further in that he/she sees, acknowledges and affirms that which one cannot know or prove [up to a point]…blind faith. We either believe a thing or know a thing…or we can simply intuit it and probe and contemplate it further.
The believer just takes a quantum leap into the unknown…and sees what he chooses…and that’s okay as long as no one is harmed…and some landscapes have more validity and others more absurdity.
You observe the insecurity? And you know this is connected to their belief in God? I don’t think you are talking about observations, I think you are talking about guesses based on deduction.
This is like no definition of ‘convenience’ I’ve ever encountered. And I’m intrigued. How is it that atheism is ‘convenient’ other than that it ‘frees’ the mind from contemplation of an imponderable? Does that give “a pleasure reward?” Something that’s ‘convenient’ means, to me, that it makes life easier for people. In this sense, atheism is a ‘convenience’–but so is faith.
It’s true that when one keeps asking “why?” to all answers, eventually one arrives at an irreducible position, a ‘ground of the mind’. I do not think that this is God, but a primary valuation-standard that is not exhaustively expressible in one particular statement. This ground of interpretation is a direct expression of the subjects being, and is therefore irreducible (value ontology), but not objective – meaning, not the same for everyone to whom you ask the questions.
Everyone has his limits, but in everyone this limit is different, a unique core of subjectivity from which all answers are generated.
As I curiously watched this post fall under the foundations of which I laid, I must say “thank you” to this particular post from Fixed Cross, as I will use it passively…
Deduction is what every intelligent being has in common. True, the ability to deduct varies yet the proccess stays the same.
Because of this difference in the ability to deduct our outcome, and the different proccess each being posses’s is the basic property for each religion. Deduction of the unkown outcome of man.(May I say?). Neither you nor me will be able to conceive a reasonable explianation for “God” untill a “God” is able to prove to us that it infact is “God”.
For the athiests (And every other religion.) standpoint. Religion in all are just theorys, made from unacheivable deductions of a theory like the one I originially presented. Understand my example has all of the qualities that come with any religion, and so far I have reached the point in which I can truely understand the structure of religion and its purpose…
But who is to say everything we know is not just theorys…