Questions for Atheists

Hi Open Mind
That is a lot of questions and I won't try to answer them all at this stage.
I don't think it is true to say that scientific training and atheism necessarily go hand in hand in quite the way you suggest. There are theistic scientists and atheists with little scientific knowledge. However I agree that there does seem to be a broad correlation between the two.Rather than your implication that the scientifically trained think they have all the answers I think the opposite is true. Scientific training both breeds and attracts those with the following qualities that are relevant to this debate:1) A desire to get beyond the superficial and ideological "knowledge" in order to find the "truth"
2) An evidenced based approach to investigation.
3) A healthy scepticism with respect to knowledge.
4) An ability to acknowledge that the answer "we don't know" is better than an unwarrented claim of certainty.
5) An ability to acknowledge that evidence is always imperfect and that interpretations are always subjective (thus leading to the methods of science as the best methods of achieving objectivity and reliability of knowledge)
6) An appreciation that absolute certainty is not possible. Science, and indeed any evidence based method of investigation, is necessarily tentative to some degree.In short science is about recognsing the limits of our ability to "know" and imposing the methods and criteria required to maximise the reliability of of our conclusions with this in mind.As a self avowed atheist and physics graduate I guess I am your target audience The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that the evidence for theistic claims is just utterly absent and the methods of investigation with regard to these claims just does not justify the outrageaousness of these conclusions.I don't think faith is noble. In fact quite the opposite.......

I think it is as much to do with general demenour and method of expression as it is what they actually say.Harris comes across as kinda jovial, brash and spontaneous whereas Dawkins can come across as superior, arrogant, cold, considered and quite ruthless in his turn of phrase.They both sort of exemplify the stereotypes of their respective nationalities. Additionally I don't think there is much that American conservatives (who make up a large portion of the religious right) hate more than perceived intellectual elitism.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Conscious sentient beings do indeed have motivations. Including J the R. Nobody is disputing that.However it then takes a massive and unjustified leap of faith to conclude that physical processes that do not involve sentient beings also have such "motivations".Unless you are claiming all physical proceses from tidal waves to leaves falling to radioactive decay are the result of such motivations it would seem that we have numerous examples of non-sentient physical proceses that lack motivation and no examples at all of any that do.Are you claiming all physical processes are the result of motivation? Do you have any examples of physical processes that do not involve living organisms that definitely are the result of motivation in your view?

So we have an almost infinite number of examples of physical processes that are not the product of motivation.And no examples of processes that are a result of motivation in the absence of sentient living organisms.Yet you conclude that we have no reason to doubt that physical processes that occur in the absence of sentient living organisms are the product of motivation at all?