Everyone on this board shold be smart enough not to make general unsupported statements that attempts to categorize millions of people of difference ages, sex, nationalities, races with different religions, cultures and life experience into one category to be dismissed at your leisure.
Everyone should be, but as OL says "there are exceptions". And I've come to find he's an exceptional individual. As for me, I suppose I'm an adherent to the god of science, because one thing I could never stand was a man who possesses an unshakable certainty.
Atheist, theist, or monkey of a different flavor, people find comfort in their beliefs. And that's just dandy. But fear the man who refuses to challenge his own views. There was an old saying I quite liked about debate. "Be prepared to listen, and be prepared to lose".
Listening is important. A man who is certain, doesn't listen. Because he already has all of the answers. FRANKLY, he's irritated that he has to wait for your jaws to stop flapping. And I think that's what I like about science as a "religion". It's almost an impossibility for science to accept anything as a hundred percent certain. Science is all ABOUT listening and observing.
I don't like people who feel they have all the answers, REGARDLESS of how long they feel they've put themselves to task. Pontificating from the pulpit or from a keyboard is still an aggressive act. It says, "I am so very certain of my position that I must force it upon you!" and frankly... that sets off alarms for me. It smacks of an arrogance born of insecurity. I, of course, have my opinions, and I will defend them in proportion to the strength of my convictions. But sometimes I feel I'm discussing things with people whose goal isn't really to enlighten me, but rather to show me how very brilliant they are. And that's not really a conversation I want to have, because it moves away from the exchange of ideas. It becomes almost an exercise in semantic debate and creatively applied fallacies.
For instance... agnostic pride?
I am an agnostic personally. At the end of the day, with my experiences tallied, it was what I came up with on the bottom line. I might very well defend my belief or lack thereof if challenged. But I should never claim to be proud of the decision one way or the other, really. It conjures images of the kid on top of the monkey bars, squawking his superiority to the children below.
Who can take pride in an uncertain conclusion? And what is agnosticism, if not a confession of uncertainty?