How did it start?

Jackel, the vast majority of people who accept TOE on its merits, in the US and Europe, do believe in some form of god. Scientific principles are not guided by religious beliefs, but by evidence and successful models. It is important to note that less than 10% of western population is considered atheist ( in some areas, its far lower). Therefore, religious beliefs and and acceptance of scientific princples doesn't seem to be a problem, unless one's religious beliefs are based literally on the bible, at which point there is a conflict. The conflict arises because a literal interpretation of the bible conflicts with all areas of modern science.

Jackel, I could discuss some of my beliefs as an atheist, but my point was that validation and acceptance of scientific principles is generally not related to any form of personal belief, be it christianity, atheist, etc. The conflict arises when a belief system contradicts scientific findings. There are many devout christians, my wife among them, who are perfectly able to understannd and accept TOE on its merits without a conflict with faith. I am not trying to knock your personal beliefs, I just want you to understand that evolution, or any scientific concept, is not a "atheistic" pricinciple. Scientific progress tries its best to exclude such bias from the proccess one way or another. As such, for people of faith who don't percieve a conflict with their faith and science, there isn't a one.
Creationism, both young and old earth models, are based on a belief that the bible is the literal word of god and therefore infallible. The viewpoint goes that god's word can't be wrong, therefore any conflict between creationism and science must indicate, by creationist standards, that the science is wrong.
Now, we could discuss various logical fallacies in this arguement, but that is not my intention at this time. I just want you to understant that your viewpoint is not the viewpoint of all christians. The conflict stems from a particular interpretation of the bible. Many people don't take a literalist view, and therefore don't have your perceived conflict.

By arugment, I mean livley discussion. No worries, I am not easily offended anyways. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I have little problem answering personal questions, nor am I offended. I am not sure this is the best thread for the conversation, but if you want to ask anything, feel free, or open a new thread, and just let me know which. Of course, my views and beliefs, though atheistic, are not going to be the same views or beliefs as other atheists, beyond a common lack of beleif in deities. You'll find as many shades of athiests as you will christians.

I hope you don't mind a different athiests opinion on that matter. I personally believe that the human body and mind is nothing more than a wondefully complex biological machine. Our brain is a physical entity, and our perceptions and thoughts are the functional byproduct of that phsyical entity working. While it continues to function, we are living, breathing, thinking individiuals. When the brain shuts down, thats it. Your mind no longer exists since the machinery is broken. The end result is that the "individual me" , or you , or anyone, in my opinion, ceases to exist. Not very comforting, but its what best fits my observations and beliefs.

Sure, no problem. I have a calculus exam to study for tonight as well. I am just procrasting at the moment. : )
As for comfort, the fact that I don't believe in a afterlife does has its terrible moments. I do understand how religion and faith could be very comforting. From my point of view, however, a lack of comfort doesn't change what I perceive to be the truth, which is that we have a entirely material existance, and that our life span is all we have with which to enjoy it.

The test went well. Multivariable calculus isn't easy, but it is interesting. Initally, I started taking classes with an electrical engineering major in mind, but I have found that my passions lie more in line with the physics of it, not the technical application. Currently I am torn between wanting to major in physics or try to really punish myself, and double major EE as well.
As for my belief, it is probably better that I start closer to the beginning. I was raised christian, went to sunday school, ect, and for the most part, was a believer. That said, most people at my church were defintely not literalists. There were a few, but not many. This was probably a good thing for myself, considering the trouble I used to get into while asking questions. For example, I was, and still am, an avid watcher of nature shows. I remember when I was around 7 watching a show on how there are over 250,000 species of beetles. Well, we had been discussing Noah and the ark in sunday school, so the next sunday I asked the teacher how Noah got all those beetles together from all over the world. I didn't ask sacrastically, I just wanted to know, since it seemed so hard to do. She didn;t have an answer. A literal reading of the bible has always been absurd to me, even at a young age at a time when I did believe.
However, I am very much a realist, and as I developled that, amongst other personal traits, I started examining various beliefs of mine and others. I simply found that nowhere in my life had I experienced anything remotely approximating divinity. I found that other than providing a social focal point and providing comfort, there was no basis for religion. The idea central to religion is belief without explanation or confirmation. I found this to be contrary to my own nature.
Since I wasn't comfortable completely casting away religion, I turned to a personal form of deism. I believed that the universe was run by natural laws, but that a divinity provided the spark for the big bang.
However, I came to realize that this again was simply my wish for comfort being manifested in a personal faith. I didn't, and still don't like the idea that oblivion awaits. After a while, I realized that there simply is no evidence for any deity, and that in the absence of evidence, there is no grounds other than personal desires to have faith.
Today, I essentially beleive that the world is materialistic in nature. I don't see the need to appeal to deities for the universe to work. I also don't believe that our human need for purpose somehow means that theuniverise has a purpose. I don't completly deny the possibility of some form of unknown intelligence that somehow created the universe, I just think it higly unlikely. I think that all the supposed faiths on the earth are man made creations.
All things being equal, I don't believe in any gods. There is simply no evidence for it. Additionally, I have found that I can find purpose, love, ethics, and joy in life without resorting to any form of spiritualism.

SckepticScand, I would disagree on the importance of Drake's equation. It is a completely specualtive tool, with factors that can't be observed or measured at all, at least at this time, for sure. It is useful as an illustrative tool, but not much of a scientific acheivement.