<p>Let me get straight to the point. Atheism is an abstract concept, and therefore the question of whether it exists or not is irrelevant. You and I have been discussing it, so therefore it MUST exist. If you think that this entire discussion has been about whether Atheism exists or not, then I am sorry for not making myself clearer because clearly that would render this entire argument pointless. I understand that atheism exists. You and I could sit here and make a list of why atheism is the correct way. Immaculate conception is impossible! G_d is impossible! What about the laws of gravity? How could Christ ascend to Heaven? What is Heaven? </p>
<p>You get the point...
It's easy to make a case for atheism. It's even harder to believe in. I think evolution and the Big Bang theory is a nice explanation of our existence. It has scientific proof. The whole 7-day scenario? Doesn't really make much rational sense. But why do so many human beings believe that then? It's not because they are stupid, or they've been "forced" to believe in it, as you would argue. It's because I believe humans are naturally inclined to believe in something beyond reason. I accept Evolution and atheism as the "correct," if you will, way; but I also accept that religion and spirituality is impossible to avoid. To some extent, I believe all humans harbor a spiritual side, something that allows them to give purpose to life. Darwin became a Christian at the end of his life, what does that say? (<a href="http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf057/sf057g18.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf057/sf057g18.htm</a>) Sam Harris practices a form of Buddhism. Ironic? I think not. </p>
<p>Thank you for the statistics. However, I really do not understand how they relate to this discussion except to describe the religiousity of a nation. In fact, that might attest to man's natural inclination toward religion. </p>
<p>In my concluding statement I'd like to point out that this argument is inherently flawed. Why? Because you, and I, and Sam Harris and Dawkins are human beings. Therefore, it's impossible to produce a convincing argument for either side. Perhaps human beings do not even know HOW to comprehend life, it is beyond our capacity to ever understand.</p>