I’ve had my share of debates, and I have had my share of arguments. The bulk of these happen over IM, and between Colin and me. Sometimes, illuminating tidbits come along, but mostly it’s arguing, with Colin antagonizing me, me becoming vexed with his steadfast (and to me puzzling) adherence to his ideas, and finally, with some tacitly agreed-upon truce. Sometimes the truce comes a little too late (you should see the IM logs on this) and heads need to cool down, and other times, there is some actual erudite conversation. Take, for example, this excerpt:
<lots of random overtalk>
(1:55:02 PM) Carl Reyes: okay, well, if you just want to discuss atheism, it is not about faith.
(1:55:29 PM) Carl Reyes: it is about a distinct lack of faith.
(1:55:35 PM) Colin Rego: I want you NOT to say you KNOW.
(1:55:49 PM) Colin Rego: and NOT say I SHOULDN’T allow for it
(1:55:56 PM) Colin Rego: that it is ILLOGICAL when it isn’t
(1:56:04 PM) Colin Rego: logic has nothing to do with atheism
(1:56:24 PM) Carl Reyes: I never said I ‘know’. I mean, the truth is that atheism is almost as pig-headed as religion.
(1:56:32 PM) Colin Rego: zackly
(1:56:33 PM) Carl Reyes: however, it makes more logical sense, on paper.
(1:56:54 PM) Colin Rego: what makes more sense? You DON’T have an answer.
(1:57:04 PM) Colin Rego: how does the LACK of an answer make sense?
(1:57:09 PM) Colin Rego: it’s an empty page?
(1:57:17 PM) Colin Rego: nothing is written
(1:57:53 PM) Carl Reyes: that’s cognitive dissonance. Because you are using a separation of creator from all religions to try to go directly to the beginning. which is a bit misleading.
(1:58:09 PM) Colin Rego: its not misleading.
(1:58:14 PM) Colin Rego: its called abstraction
(1:58:19 PM) Carl Reyes: it skips over everything that came after the creation
(1:58:25 PM) Colin Rego: sure
(1:58:32 PM) Colin Rego: since we are talking about a CREATOR
(1:58:39 PM) Carl Reyes: which, I might point out, can almost all be explained without any intervention of a creator.
(1:58:44 PM) Colin Rego: not any specific organized religous belief
(1:58:47 PM) Carl Reyes: right
(1:59:14 PM) Carl Reyes: so, I could ask… why would a creator create the universe, only to explain everything after that moment in clearly calculable ways?
(1:59:26 PM) Carl Reyes: why stop the explanation at 15 billion years ago?
(1:59:50 PM) Carl Reyes: why not 10, or 5, or 1… or 100?
(1:59:55 PM) Colin Rego: And I would say, why does anything else matter?
(2:00:15 PM) Carl Reyes: well, then you’ve hit on a central point of quantum physics.
(2:00:23 PM) Carl Reyes: what happened before the big bang?
(2:00:27 PM) Carl Reyes: it doesn’t matter
(2:00:32 PM) Colin Rego: NO.
(2:00:36 PM) Carl Reyes: it cannot and does not affect us now
(2:00:36 PM) Colin Rego: that’s not creation.
(2:01:00 PM) Colin Rego: Not even relevant to what we are talking about
(2:01:29 PM) Carl Reyes: sure it is. if you and I both agree that everything that happened after the big bang is observable, then we are really both only left with what happened before and/or caused it
(2:01:37 PM) Colin Rego: You said that atheism has a more logical explanation for the beginning.
(2:01:52 PM) Colin Rego: and I still contend that atheism lacks an explanation entirely
(2:04:09 PM) Colin Rego: you have more faith than me. which, is quite funny. 
(2:05:20 PM) Carl Reyes: bite me
<more crosstalk, followed by discussion on how photos can be misleading>
I guess Colin is sort of right. I mean, At it’s heart, atheism is a belief that there is no god. I mean, it’s a bit misleading to call it ‘faith’ exactly, but we do take for granted that science will never find god (or gods, or whatever), and this belief we atheists hold isn’t really based on the same things that science is based on. Which, as Colin pointed out, also explains how some scientists maintain faith. They can see and believe in evolution, and at the same time hold faith that somewhere along the existence of our universe (or before) something created it as part of an elaborate thought process.
But you know, I just can’t. Occam’s Razor is my guiding principal in this. And although this lends itself to a supreme irony in that I hold a strong belief that is more than most people’s religious fervor, it is what it is. That, and most religious zealots I have encountered sound like rejects from The Crucible.
It is illustrative, perhaps, for me to point you to “The Dragon in My Garage”, by Carl Sagan. It’s a good read. Except, where Sagan says, “…the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion,” I say… these people are just delusional. Colin says it’s possible that I’m delusional.
I don’t have the evidence to prove I am not. I guess I’ll just have to have… faith.