Sicarius,
Christianity (and other religions) are not formed in a vacuum. There are cultural and historical reasons for the form that they take... just as it was pointed out up-thread by Darwyn that there were no original ideas in Christianity. For example, in the Jewish culture of the time there was already animal sacrifices to appease God... the sacrifice of Jesus is a simple step from that. ...the same sort of concept of incremental change is seen in all other aspects of culture... whether it be art, architecture, music, clothing, philosophy or political structures... It appears alien from the outside... but it is completely logical and natural for those within that culture.

I agree Sicarius, and if you'll point out where someone claimed to have proof of Christianity, I'll understand why you made that argument. I've only been saying is that you can't disprove God's existence, not that you can prove it.

Jewish culture (in this case, the Bible) forbids human sacrifice. It was strictly forbidden by God in contrast to surrounding peoples who sometimes sought to use human sacrifice to 'appease' the gods. So, while many aspects of the christian religion may actually have a basis in Israël, the central theme of Christianity is totally opposed to Jewish culture. Not only sacrificing a man for wrongdoings, no God Himself dieing for the sins of all. Hallelujah! Ask yourself, why would twelve Jews start preaching this gospel?


Dear Sicarius,

I have tried to answer your question, are you happy with that? I also asked you a question: 'why do you believe in proof?' Mind answering?


BTW, do I still need to dismiss the 'Christianity-shares-many-elements-with-other-(earlier)-religious-traditions-(in-the-Middle-East)-and-is-therefore-a-construction-of-those-elements' or has everybody already the logical, historical and religous stupidity of this statement? :)

Involuntary human sacrifices were forbidden, yes, but Christ sacrifice was his own to make. He was a martyr, as it were, and not sacrificed against his will.

Now in the IT field, we do virgin sacrifices to the computer god all the time. Of course, IT majors in college are mostly virgins anyhow, so sacrificing a virgin is not only easy as it just takes getting the latest intern drunk and tying him up, but it is also a mercy killing as, unless he gets married somehow, he'll probably never get laid anyhow.

@Ursa - why would any small group start preaching something different than the dominant religion of the area? Why would Joseph Smith and his followers start preaching Mormonism even though it was at odds in many ways with more traditional Christianity? Why would there be any change at all to religious teachings over the centuries? Obviously, the Christians were seen as heretics and blasphemers by their Jewish neighbors... as were the Mormons seen as heretics and blasphemers by their Protestant neighbors. Why would either group start preaching this new gospel? Why indeed. Differentness does not imply divine inspiration you understand... (though the believers themselves may dispute that assertion).

In regards to human sacrifice... I dispute that. Consider the story in the Old Testament where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son for God (though that request is rescinded): " Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."" - Genesis, Chap. 22. The idea of sacrifice to satisfy God was not that far removed from Jewish tradition. ...so to use that idea for the story of Jesus is not a huge jump. (though, as you suggest indirectly, influences from the cultures of surrounding peoples may have had an influence)

@Draugnar - lol.
Being an often frustrated computer user... I can understand that the computer god works in mysterious ways.

"Right, Xapi's basis for his belief in god is an assumption. I know this. And perhaps my example wasn't clear or even that good. All I'm trying to suggest is that I, too, can believe in things that are based on assumptions. And if all it takes are assumptions, then the difference between god and a unicorn is zero."

There are three differences:

1 - There was a man actually named Darwin (whose name you're stepping on repeatedly) who produced very strong evidence (I dare say, almost definitive evidence) of how the horses came to be. As pointed out by others before me, the theories regarding the creation of the Universe are incomplete at best, incongruent at worst. Now, I don't assume that science won't find the answers to those questions at some point. I just *think* it won't.

2 - The flyng spaghetti monster and the unicorns are very specific beings with very specific qualities wich are not at all necesary to explain that wich we are trying to explain. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation to a problem is usually the right one.

So, if you don't need the Creator to be made out of spaghetti, then I wouldn't stipulate that it is.

It could be though.

"Now, I don't assume that science won't find the answers to those questions at some point."

But you HAVE assumed science won't answer them because you've conveniently used god to explain how the universe could not have been made accidentally instead of just accepting the fact that you don't know

It's no different than how the Greeks used the sun god and his chariot of horses to explain why they saw the sun crossed the sky.

You say: "The universe could not have been created by chance. Therefore, god created the universe"

A Greek would say: "I see the sun travel across the sky. Therefore, the sun god is driving the sun across the sky."

"So, if you don't need the Creator to be made out of spaghetti, then I wouldn't stipulate that it is.

It could be though."

But by the mere fact that you think he's an image of man and I think he's made of spaghetti means we are both full of shit. Neither one of us can claim we spoke to him because we cannot agree what he is.

"There was a man actually named Darwin (whose name you're stepping on repeatedly)"

Oh, okay...I see how it is. Drag my choice of screen name through the mud, eh? Well in that case, you are giving the Xian Aeronautical Polytechnic Institute a bad name I'd say. =D Oh and if you wanna enumerate three differences, best to actually use three and not two.

I can play this game too. Let's just end the pettiness, shall we?

@ zuzak
You haven't responded to any of the points I listed in the post beginning:
"@Darwyn:
"God says different things to different people"
..."
Do you concede that your proof was incorrect?"

No, because you keep avoiding why "as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord".

Assuming that god says different things to different people is precisely the excuse for why there are so many incarnations of "god".

I can claim ANYTHING to be god and by your own assumption, you are forced to believe me. Even though you will know I am full of shit.

I have a rock in my pocket. It is god. And more importantly, he's not YOUR god. My god rules all...and more importantly, he rules you. He told me so. (This is where I kill you for denying my god).

For you to assume that god speaks different things to different people only proves that there is no god.

Thus the proof:

"If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.

Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades.

But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.

The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist. "

"I can claim ANYTHING to be god and by your own assumption, you are forced to believe me."

I want to reiterate this because I think this is a key point. Using the assumption that "god says different things to different people" means that no matter who claims what to be god, you are forced to accept it to the detriment of your own belief.

Do you believe in Zeus? If you don't, you will have violated your assumption. If you do, you will have violated your belief.

Good luck!

""god is a mythical creature created by man."

Prove it."

I think I did. =D

"But you HAVE assumed science won't answer them because you've conveniently used god to explain how the universe could not have been made accidentally instead of just accepting the fact that you don't know"

I accept the fact that I don't know. I have accepted it over and over again. I have not assumed that science won't answer these questions, I simply believe that it won't.

" It's no different than how the Greeks used the sun god and his chariot of horses to explain why they saw the sun crossed the sky. "

Again, it is different in that I have a huge scientific base for what I believe in. We can explain almost everything based on a handful of basic laws about the Universe, but we can't, and I believe we never will, explain why these laws are the way they are.

And they're so convenient.

"You say: "The universe could not have been created by chance. Therefore, god created the universe"

A Greek would say: "I see the sun travel across the sky. Therefore, the sun god is driving the sun across the sky.""

I say: "The universe could not have been created by chance. Therefore, something created the universe"

I don't give a rat's ass about what the Greeks believed in.

"But by the mere fact that you think he's an image of man and I think he's made of spaghetti means we are both full of shit. Neither one of us can claim we spoke to him because we cannot agree what he is."

I don't think he's an image of man, I don't claim to know how he is at all. I don't claim to have spoken to him either, do you?


"No, because you keep avoiding why "as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord"."

There's still the next possibilities:

1 - That there is more than one God (*1)

2 - That God shows himself different to different people

3 - That different people understand God's message differently (*2)

4 - That there are some people who really can comunicate with God and agree, and other people who are lying or fooling themselves about it, and say different things.

5 - That there is a God whom does not communicate with humans at all. (*3)

(This is copyed from my first post in this thread, for the asterisks, redirect yourself there)

"I can claim ANYTHING to be god and by your own assumption, you are forced to believe me. Even though you will know I am full of shit.

I have a rock in my pocket. It is god. And more importantly, he's not YOUR god. My god rules all...and more importantly, he rules you. He told me so. (This is where I kill you for denying my god)."

No. I assume that a creator exists. I don't need to give any particular characteristic to it to believe in it. And I don't need to believe you either.

The point is that people in different places and times have given different characteristics to God(s), and I can only give credit to those religions who are not in complete oposition with reality.

Now, if you say that your rock is your God, I would say that that is unlikely, if only for it being stupidly convoluted. If, however, you say that your rock is your God and any one who touches it becomes allpowerful, and then I punch you in the face and put you to the ground, then I'd say that your belief is bullshit.

See the difference?

"""god is a mythical creature created by man."

Prove it."

I think I did. =D"

You didn't. There are at least 5 scenarios in wich one or more God exists and the people don't agree on the number of Gods there are, as I have explained in my first post.

"I accept the fact that I don't know"

No you didn't. Cuz you "know" god created it. That's not accepting you don't know. That's simply saying "must be god".

"I simply believe that it won't."

ANd thus, your belief that god "must have" created it.

"Again, it is different in that I have a huge scientific base for what I believe in. We can explain almost everything based on a handful of basic laws about the Universe, but we can't, and I believe we never will, explain why these laws are the way they are."

Just like people believed that science would "never" explain that the earth is round or that it isn't the center of the universe, right? You are doing the same thing without even realizing it. You've put your own limit to science and human knowledge (just as others have in the past) and conveniently interjecting your own reasoning for it.

"And they're so convenient."

So is your belief...to you.

"I don't think he's an image of man, I don't claim to know how he is at all. I don't claim to have spoken to him either, do you?"

It doesn't matter what you think he is. What matters is that you don't think he's what I or others believe he is.

1 - That there is more than one God (*1)
> This cannot be the case, because I only believe in one god. This leads us right back into the logic trap I explained above (and below)

2 - That God shows himself different to different people
> This cannot be the case because if you believe in your god, then it means you don't believe in mine. So this assumption is wrong or you are wrong. See my above comment: "Do you believe in Zeus? If you don't, you will have violated your assumption. If you do, you will have violated your belief."

3 - That different people understand God's message differently (*2)
> - this defies the definition of god. (ie. god can create heavenly bodies and perhaps man, but cannot effectively communicate well? Why not just assume he stutters then?)

4 - That there are some people who really can comunicate with God and agree, and other people who are lying or fooling themselves about it, and say different things.
> See my comment for 2.

5 - That there is a God whom does not communicate with humans at all. (*3)
> then there is no god and god is just a mythical creature created by man.

There. All five scenarios solved. 1,2 and 4 are the same variation of the same problem...that man cannot agree as to what he is. And 3 makes no sense.

"If, however, you say that your rock is your God and any one who touches it becomes allpowerful, and then I punch you in the face and put you to the ground, then I'd say that your belief is bullshit."

Good thing my god doesn't give me powers. You'd be screwed. :)

....just stop you arent making any progress with your arguments

@Darwyn - you're making my head hurt. Your last long post was basically impossible to follow. I agree with you that a belief in God has some weaknesses logically (otherwise I probably wouldn't be an atheist)... but, never the less, I had a much easier time understanding Xapi's post... and I agreed with his breakdown of the possibilities regarding God. It was logical to my reasoning. I really don't think that you can argue that there is no God simply because some who believe in God are inconsistent or illogical... and that is what you appear to be doing... (though I'm left not being completely sure). There is a saying that you cannot prove a negative... We cannot prove there is no God. Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. (At least not conclusively).

What? The closest I can come to understanding Darwyn's post is that he's using circular logic, "If there are multiple understandings of God, he must not exist. Therefore, any argument that shows that there can be multiple understandings, with God's existence, must be wrong. Therefore, my proof is correct."

"No, because you keep avoiding why "as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord"."

You keep avoiding proving that. I presented those arguments in response to that claim, I am not ignoring it at all, I'm just showing why its false.

"I can claim ANYTHING to be god and by your own assumption, you are forced to believe me. Even though you will know I am full of shit."

What assumption would that be? I never said anything about everything being god, or all claims to godhood are correct.

"1 - That there is more than one God (*1)
> This cannot be the case, because I only believe in one god. This leads us right back into the logic trap I explained above (and below)"

Um, what? How does your belief that there is only one god affect the actual number of gods? This is an argument against your proof, and you're using that proof to argue against it. Thus, circular logic.

"2 - That God shows himself different to different people
> This cannot be the case because if you believe in your god, then it means you don't believe in mine. So this assumption is wrong or you are wrong. See my above comment: "Do you believe in Zeus? If you don't, you will have violated your assumption. If you do, you will have violated your belief.""

Once again, you're saying that your proof is correct, and that because of this, anything that disproves it must be wrong, and that therefore, your proof is correct.

"3 - That different people understand God's message differently (*2)
> - this defies the definition of god. (ie. god can create heavenly bodies and perhaps man, but cannot effectively communicate well? Why not just assume he stutters then?)"

As I believe I already mentioned, two people cannot experience anything in the exact same way unless they are exactly identical.

"5 - That there is a God whom does not communicate with humans at all. (*3)
> then there is no god and god is just a mythical creature created by man."

What? If there IS a god who doesn't communicate with humans, there must NOT be a god. More simply, if there is a god, then there isn't a god. Yeah, that doesn't work.

Just to clarify on that last point, what I mean is, if a proof violates an assumption, the logic is wrong.


God exists and doesn't communicate
[Insert logic here]
God does not exist

The logic in the middle must be incorrect.

@Dexter - I will answer zuzak's post in the hopes it will clarify my argument.

@zuzak -

"he's using circular logic, "If there are multiple understandings of God, he must not exist."

There is no 'if'. There ARE multiple understandings of god. Go ahead, pick one: http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm

And you are missing a step in the logic. If you or I cannot agree as to how many gods there are (and there have been hundreds, if not thousands through the years), then neither of us can claim to understand or know who or what he is based on him making himself known to us.

WHy you ask?

Because using the "god speaks differently to different people" excuse means that you must accept EVERY single god (see above link).

I can say, he spoke with me and he looked like spaghetti. You could say he spoke with you and he looked like a man. And someone else could say they spoke with him and he looked like a bright light. So if you assume that god speaks differently to different people, you must automatically accept my god. After all, he is simply invoking the assumption that he will speak differently to different people, right?

But believers don't do this. They believe in their god and only their god. Therefore, the assumption that god speaks differently to different people is rubbish. YOu cannot make that assumption to explain away the multitude of gods throughout history and still clutch onto the concept of what you think god is.

"What assumption would that be?"

that god speaks differently to different people. See above.

"I never said anything about everything being god, or all claims to godhood are correct."

That's precisely why belief in your god is wrong. See above. YOu can't have it both ways. Again, you cannot claim that he speaks differently to different people at the same time you claim he is your god.

"How does your belief that there is only one god affect the actual number of gods?"

It doesn't. You missed my point. I'm saying that I believe in only one god to contrast your point that there are many. It's this conflict that proves there are none. Again, you cannot claim that god speaks differently to different people and still firmly believe in your god and your god only...because, guess what? god speaks differently to different people!!!!!

I have two rocks in my pocket. They are both gods because they tell me so. If "god speaks differently to different people" like you want to claim, then you MUST accept the two rocks in my pocket as gods. But you won't. You want to hold onto what YOU think god is.

"Once again, you're saying that your proof is correct, and that because of this, anything that disproves it must be wrong, and that therefore, your proof is correct."

If you aren't getting what I'm talking about by now, perhaps this is a lost cause. YOU are the one making the claim that god speaks differently to different people to explain away the multitude of gods.

"two people cannot experience anything in the exact same way unless they are exactly identical"

You assume that god cannot make this happen? Let me get this straight...he is the creator. He created this massive universe down to the electron and, either directly or indirectly, created life and ulitimately man. But he cannot get his message across?

Read that over and over and listen to yourself. You assume he created the universe at the same time you assume god has the inability to communicate effectively.

That is insane!! Your concept of god is ALL over the place! Be consistent when you bullshit me at least!

"What? If there IS a god who doesn't communicate with humans, there must NOT be a god. More simply, if there is a god, then there isn't a god. Yeah, that doesn't work."

That wasn't worded so well on my part. What I'm saying is that If god doesn't communicate with humans, then the concept of god is nothing more than a man made construct, just like any other mythical beast.

Cuz I can say the same about leprechauns. There are leprechauns who don't communicate with humans. But they exist! I know, I saw a pot of gold once. It MUST be true. =D

Well, at this point, I have no delusions of persuading you of my logical proof. I will continue to try to explain what you aren't understanding, and if we can make progress, fine. If not, whatever.

I only hope I am being clear, whether you agree or not.

Although I am not in the category addressed by Sicarius, I still feel entitled to react and give my views.
I think there is one and only one very simple reason why so many people choose to believe in one or whole tribes of gods:
The fear of dying.
I also think that if lions could talk they would invent a god that looked like a massive male lion.
Ergo: Gods are invented by mankind, in a variety that corresponds neatly with the variety in people and tribes around this tiny planet in the cosmos.

Except that some gods do not appear in a human visage at all. There was a time when the sun and the moon were considered gods. Yet, they do not resemble humankind in the least. So must it be pointed out that Jehovah/Yahweh/God of Jewish and Christian theology (i.e. God the Father in Christianity) does not necessarily look human. He appeard unto Moses as a voice in a burning bush. He appeared to the disciples at the transfiguration as a loud voice from within a mist that surrounded them. None of these are human visages at all. Other religions hold a variety of animals as sacred and god-like beings as well.

@Darwyn - I think that the crowd that says that there are multiple understandings of god or that god speaks differently to different people are a different crowd of people than those that say my god is THE god. Generally speaking, the former are the more liberal sects such as Unitarian Universalists, for example, and the latter are the Orthodox sects that insist all others will not get into heaven. The former tend to recognize that their view is limited and culturally influenced and tend to respect "other paths" to God... the latter don't and tend to see "other paths" as false and fruitless if not actually evil. The existence of these two extremes on the continuum of religious views does not prove that they are both false. (an individual holding both that their view of god was the only correct one and that there are other valid views of god obviously is an internal contradiction... but I don't see that anyone here is expressing that... nor does that sound likely. That said, people do have their favorite views... I can say, for example, that I respect all forms of music... but I find that only the Beatles actually speaks to me - personally. That is a legitimate and consistent point of view.)

As far as what you said about a god that doesn't speak to humans (or otherwise show itself)... you seem to be saying that faith is not proof and that mythical creatures are as likely... well, you and I agree on that point. But to many, faith is a form of proof (not scientific - but still of value). There really is not much point in arguing with someone of faith on the point. Most of the believers in this thread seem to acknowledge that they don't definitively know (in the proof sense of the word) that there is a god... but they feel it strongly enough (and it seems reasonable enough) for them to feel that it is true. You and I might be tempted to see that in the same light as a belief in Santa Claus... but then we might readily believe other things that could simply be imaginative constructs ourselves... such as love or individuality or free will or self-actualization or a view of what happens after death or an opinion about alternate universes, multiple dimensions, or the nature of time... there is a certain amount of faith in each of these concepts. That fact, of course, doesn't assign real value to faith by itself... but it is worth recognizing that faith exists as something that we all experience in varying degrees. I am of the sort that prefers understanding and will happily doubt and analyze where others simply feel something uncritically... but I can't say that I'm immune... I doubt anyone is. And most value these spiritual/religious feelings and don't want to dispense with them.

@ Draugnar - I agree...gods have appeared in the form of many things.

@ Dexter - That was a very good synopsis (if I can call it that). And I agree with you on all points. I realize that faith exists and that it probably always will.

I had just hoped to challenge some mindsets (as well as my own) with the "proof" I posted.

Also, well said Pantalone.

Ok, I think I understand. What you're saying is that, if you assume that God says different things to different people, then all of the beliefs held, which were told by God to the people, must be equally valid, and since they contradict each other, God cannot have said them, and therefore, they must be incorrect. Right?

So it would be possible to have a dishonest god, who says the truth to one person and lies to the others? And besides, god saying different things to different people doesn't mean that everyone who claims to have spoken with god is telling the truth.

"That's precisely why belief in your god is wrong. See above. YOu can't have it both ways. Again, you cannot claim that he speaks differently to different people at the same time you claim he is your god."

No, I'm just proposing the possibility that there is a god that speaks differently to different people. I'm pretty sure I never said anything about "my god."

"You assume that god cannot make this happen? Let me get this straight...he is the creator. He created this massive universe down to the electron and, either directly or indirectly, created life and ulitimately man. But he cannot get his message across?"

As I said, no, you cannot ever get your message across perfectly, regardless of what you say. I guess he could communicate ideas telepathically or something, but that's easier to dismiss as imagination or schizophrenia.

"That is insane!! Your concept of god is ALL over the place! Be consistent when you bullshit me at least!"

You misunderstand. I'm not presenting my concept of god, I'm presenting various, unrelated concepts that could exist in the presence of different religions.

"Well, at this point, I have no delusions of persuading you of my logical proof."

Your proof is only logical if there is no way for a god to exist with different religions, and I've presented several possibilities where this is not the case.

"That wasn't worded so well on my part. What I'm saying is that If god doesn't communicate with humans, then the concept of god is nothing more than a man made construct, just like any other mythical beast."

"I think there is one and only one very simple reason why so many people choose to believe in one or whole tribes of gods:
The fear of dying.
I also think that if lions could talk they would invent a god that looked like a massive male lion.
Ergo: Gods are invented by mankind, in a variety that corresponds neatly with the variety in people and tribes around this tiny planet in the cosmos."

Even if man came up with the concept of god on his own, that doesn't disprove his existence. That's like saying that since the big bang never revealed itself to us, it must not exist.

@Darwin: I tire of pointing out the logicall falacies in each and every one of your posts.

I will find an inteligent atheist somewhere else to discuss this.

option 1
we are here through the processes of nature, mostly proven by hard evidence, though some question, especially regarding the origins of the universe, remain unanswered.

option 2
theres a giant man living in the sky who created everything because he was bored, makes up all kind of abstract rules that fit the needs of the few who can talk to him.

Sicarius:

"I am genuinely interested.
I won't attack anyone.
but I will certainly have questions
I'll try to be as respectful as possible"

A big source of unnecessary dispute between believers and non-believers comes, in my opinion, from mixing the three concepts that should be looked at separately: creation of the universe, abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis, regards the process of life creation from "inanimate" matter/energy (something that first happened on this planet about 3.8 billion years ago). Evolution regards how life changes once it already exists (something that continues to happen).

We know quite a bit about evolution and can easily extrapolate that physical processes alone can account for it. No need for divine intervention (and no evidence for it).

We know very little about abiogenesis. ...but we have some solid hypotheses that could account for it. See this very good video for an explanation of how early life may have evolved (yes, evolved) from simple chemicals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=channel_page

Regarding the creation/origin of the cosmos... same sort of issue... we know little, but have some very reasonable hypotheses supported by current data.

The arguments between atheists and non-creationist believers seem to me to largely source from mixing these issues up. The existence of evolution does not prove abiogenesis without divine intervention any more than the lack of evidence regarding abiogenesis prove that evolution is somehow suspect. The two are (currently) unconnected. (I have a suspicion that the line between "living" and "non-living" will be blurred - and that evolutionary concepts will also be shown to be acting on complex chemicals during the creation of what we generally agree is life... but it is early in the process of the collection of evidence of such things. ...see the video linked above for some compelling early thought on it.)

Same thing with the creation/origin of the cosmos. We know very little... though we have some models... nothing that excludes the divine... though there is no evidence for the divine either.
---
To me it's like we're all watching a magic show and trying to determine whether everything we are seeing can be explained using physical laws (and we simply don't have a full picture... no view of the trap door or card up the sleeve)... or whether there really is "magic". Do we need divine magic to explain what we see in the world? An atheist, based on faith in the concept of uniform physical laws with no exceptions will say no. An atheist will believe that it only looks like magic because we don't understand the process yet. A believer, based on the lack of faith in uniform physical laws, will say yes, there is magic... a magic that God is responsible for. An atheist will see through the card trick because he knows how it is done and has done it himself at home... and will extrapolate that this is proof that all of the tricks done on stage were also do to sleight of hand and illusions. A believer might be convinced that the disappearing lady was a miracle and thus that maybe even the card trick has some magic in it. Both views are saying a bit too much regarding lines of evidence (though, obviously, you can see where my bias lies).

Sicarius,
Your characterization of the man in the sky certainly applies for many people's beliefs... but don't use too broad a brush, there. You neglect deists, for example. Belief in a god does not require the god to be in human or animal form or anything else that specific. Even many Christians do not necessarily look at the traditional depictions of God as a bearded white man as a literal truth. Most buddhists I have met also believe in a god... but don't ascribe a physical description nor an agenda to that god... other than love, perhaps.

I will contend two things in your post, one in general and one in particular.

"Regarding the creation/origin of the cosmos... same sort of issue... we know little, but have some very reasonable hypotheses supported by current data. "

I don't believe this to be the case. There are a ton of *different* hypotesis, and the most popular of them (the Big Bang) requires a whole lot of matter placed in a tiny little place for no reason whatsoever.

I'd hardly consider this "the same thing" as evolution, in wich I trust almost completely.

"A believer, based on the lack of faith in uniform physical laws, will say yes, there is magic... "

Personally, I don't believe there is magic in the lack of uniform of the physical laws... but in the existance of it.

Have you ever seen Shrodinger's equation? Have you seen the beauty of the physical laws that govern the Universe?

If you have, can you believe that they have happened by chance, or that they just had to be that way?

I can't.

I'm watching the magician, and I know he has a magnet in his sleeve, and I know that magnet will attract the metal... and I'm still amazed by the fact that it will, even when I know exactly why and how it will.

I was an atheist before I started college, I was also a right wing guy, and now, most of you would call me a communist.
It is knowledge, and the lack of knowledge, that made me a believer.