Ok, I hate double posting, but after re-reading nedtheundead's post, I can't not respond.

@nedtheundead:

1. Please space out posts, I almost died reading that.

2. I'm not sure you understand the atheist world view. To put it simply, there isn't one, because you can't really coordinate the lack of something. Thus, atheists must construct moral values on their own. One simply has to hope that killing someone with an axe is not found by others to be morally right.

3. Perhaps you've never taken a psychology course. The human mind is regularly and carefully studied by scientists throughout the world. These are not 'assumptions', but rather they are scientific discoveries.

4. You find it incredible that Dawkins cannot understand that atheism is unprovable. I find it incredible that you would jump to this conclusion, without considering that you may simply not understand why it may be provable. Think about it this way: Even if you believe in a God, you must realize that that makes you atheist to every other God (Zeus, FSM, etc.). Simply understand that atheists are atheist about your God for similar reasons that you are atheist about others.

5. You claim that science is not a tool of reason or logic. I simply claim, "WTF!?" If you understand anything about the scientific method, then you will realize that you are very, very wrong. I can not even begin to fathom how you would arrive at the conclusion that science does not employ reason or logic. I cannot fathom, also, how you state that science makes models and predictions about the world, without employing the use of logic and reason! How, exactly, do you think scientific research is conducted? Guesswork?

And finally, your final quotation that absolutely stuns me.

"what each person believes is really real is merely a leap of faith."

So, does this imply that if I tell you a container is filled with pure oxygen gas, rather than verify it, you'd rather 'take a leap of faith'? I have difficulty believing these words from someone who also stated:

"what matters is what is true."

The big bang does not state that matter exploded out of nothing. It states that we cannot make any reasonable inferences about the state of things before the singularity. The universe as we know it may expand then collapse in on itself in a cycle. Or it may have exploded out of nothing, because any theory is untestable, so you can say anything you want. I suppose we have proved that nothing before the big bang can be strictly disproved, which technically leaves all theories equally true or false, from god lighting his fart to FSM to exploding out of nothing to a cyclic continuum. But after the singularity things have been fairly reliable. The cyclic theory seems like the most reasonable to me.

No bloody wonder I kept sneezing yesterday... Clearly Dag and Ren prove that we are all merely energy condensed to a state of matter, we are all unified experiencing ourselves subjectively.