Atheism from the perspective of a theist

In my experience, true, abject atheism is hard to come by. The reason being is probably because we live in such as theistic world that fully being able to deny any God existing has some kind of logical contradiction associated with it.
This isn't always the case, but I will try to explain it as well as I can. Pascal (whom I've already written about) stated that only the truly irrational deny any existence of a God, because in this existence they are inevitably damning themselves to either non-existence after life (if they are correct), or to eternal damnation. In Pascal's mind, the rational person will either believe in a God, or, failing to have enough faith for that, will at least seek some kind of God, not being content with the idea that there is no God and not being content with not knowing (an agnostic who stopped searching for God would be irrational).
And, in fact, in the world of philosophy, when atheism became a real factor, it was represented by Nietzsche, whose denial of God was so complete that he even completely denied the ethics of believers as having any real value to them.
But we have lost that sense today. We live in a morally relativistic world where we often forget that many of the basic fundamentals we follows (those not found in the universal law that all humans follow) are the result of our Christian heritage. But Nietzsche understood this. Furthermore, he understood that a lot of these basic guidelines we follow are the only things restricting us from being utterly and completely base and selfish. He understood that all humans have the "will to power" which he hypothesized governs our lives.
So, for Nietzsche, the fear of an imaginary God was a silly one, and the inhibitions that normally prevent us from trampling everyone in order to further our own desires was a silly list of pointless rules.
However, in today's world, the atheist finds himself often following these rules. Upon questioning, I find that I rarely get a coherent response as to why we, as selfishly driven humans, would ever sacrifice anything great for little or nothing (like the martyrs for example). Of course, the promise of a glorious afterlife seems to be the basic reason for a lot of people's ethical choices. In fact, I would go so far as to say most of Christendom follows many of their principles for that reason. Likewise, many other basic components of decency are lost because of their lack of emphasis in Christendom.
However, the one thing I am most perplexed about is how someone can fully deny the existence of a god. I understand that one can not believe in God, just as someone else can. However, while God is not provable, at the same time, God is not disprovable. I can claim to feel God's presence, or have a mystical experience, or see miracles or appeal to the order of the universe and our bodies, and someone else can just as easily call my experiences psychological, the miracles to be chance events and the order to not be order, but just the result of a chaotic explosion billions of years ago. However, in these refutations, my opponent has never shown how his thoughts prove no God. After all, God could have caused the big bang, evolution, chance events that continue to happen today and could have altered my psychological state to experience His presence.
So in my thinking, it makes more sense to state that one is an agnostic. It is clearly easier to say that one does not think that there is a God because he has never seen proof enough than for someone to claim that there is no God because he has apparently come by some knowledge that clearly demonstrates that there can be no God.
And so I rest with my first statement: atheism, as atheism is irrational. However, I must also add that dogmatic belief as unquestioned adherence to an unexamined tradition is also irrational.

fides contra rationem

I really need a better title than that. But I couldn't think of anything. This semester I am in a philosophy class centered on theological claims. A lot of what we have been learning and studying focuses on proofs for the existence of God.
I have a really hard time accepting the proofs given. It's not that I doubt the intellectual capacity of people like Anselm, Aquinas, Kierkegaard, Averroes, Avicenna, and others. It's more that I don't think that philosophy has any say in religious conviction. Yes, we can use the philosophy of Aristotle, Mills, Kant, or Nietzsche to tell us by what standards to live. Yes, we can use Plato, Nietzsche, Saint-Exupery or MacIntyre to tell us what we should esteem. But I don't think that the existence of God has any place in philosophy.
Yes, we can speak of religious things. We refer to "Christian virtues." We speak of "the way," being "disciples of Christ," and of our teleological value. But we can only discuss this in light of our belief, a belief which does not come from philosophy.
If God were provable, then faith, one of the three Christian virtues, would be null and void. If we could take Kant's model, or Aquinas' proofs, or Anselm's definition of God as a concrete way to show God's existence, then there would be no requirement for faith. How can we esteem faith, if faith isn't even necessary. How can we be Kierkegaard's knight of faith when there is no place for faith?
Long have theologians argued about the place of faith. St Paul tells us that we are saved through our faith in Christ. James responds that faith without works is dead. The argument gets taken up again in the Reformation period with figures such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the entire Roman Church.
So how can we say that we can prove God exists? Pascal only tells us that it's better statistically to believe in God. Most theologians tell us to have faith in God. Even those arguing about the proofs of God are only arguing that they can prove why it makes sense to believe in God. God is not provable. If God were, then there would be no struggle, no faith requirement or trials to overcome. If God is a logical deduction, there are no atheists.
Even so, God provides us with enough to make it reasonable to believe in God, and also reasonable not to. The beauties that surround us and are right in front of our eyes are seen by some to be infallible proof for God's love, and by others as the beauty of chaos. Our minds and bodies prove to some that God exists and to others that natural selection favors certain traits. Even our history and progress shows to some that God has been there, and to others that nature's laws are above all others.

On Pascal

So a lot of theologians and philosophers have attempted to prove the existence of God. A lot of them have used tricky arguments and slightly unfounded premises or unsound conclusions. Some of them take assumptions that presuppose theistic notions.
Bultmann said that there were no perfect philosophies. Since there have been so many, and so many with such different conclusions, it seems that he's right. So what can we say?
If there is any way to prove God's existence, I think that C. S. Lewis has the best formula for it. However, I think this denies the need for faith, one of the defining characteristics of Christianity
So what of Pascal? The man neither tries to prove God, nor does he really speak about faith. Pascal is the gambler's philosopher.
Pascal's wager is one of the most famous "proofs" for Christianity. But I wouldn't call it a proof, just a reasonable supposition.
For those unaware of Pascal's wager, it goes something like this: There is either a god or there isn't. If there is a god, then the theists will be saved, and the atheists will not be. If there is not a god, then all human beings suffer the same fate, and it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. The only negative outcome in this proposition is that of the Atheist if there is a god. All others are either neutral or beneficial.
Pascal was the man who invented probability statistics. For him, it was all about playing the odds. The gambler, then, should definitely be a theist. And people who aren't gamblers still ought to play the odds.
However, this is not a preaching lesson. I like the man because he is an apologist for Christians. In a world where we are surrounded by irrational "believers," where the rational people have abandoned God in the name of science, and God is seen as a foolish notion, Pascal's arguments provide a refreshing boost for the believer.
Pascal also says that believing in God, or searching for God, is the only true rational thought process. How can one be satisfied with his life if he has nothing to look forward to after death? The rational person either finds God and is satisfied or is seeking to find God and is not satisfied.