MSD

Over the years, I observed the conditions surrounding each of those mythical creatures, and found evidence directly contradicting the claims made about each. Since the advent of religon in nomadic tribes of early humans, religion and the actions of so-called "Gods" were used to explain the unexplainable. Over time, the postulations of these belief systems have been proven unnecessary as formerly unexplainable processes were categorized as observable phenomena with observable, logically consistent causes.

I suppose my "faith" lies in science, which I firmly believe will be able to observe and explain all natural phenomena given a long enough time line for the development of adequate technology and understanding of that which we have already learned.
I believe that based on the trend of scientific discovery, we will eventually discover for certain that our understanding of the universe leaves no need for supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. A Unified Field Theory/Grand Unification Theory will be the eventual scientific categorization of all observable phenomena and will therefore explain the organization of the universe and largely replace the concept of "God" and the necessity of that concept in the human mindset. Unfortunately, I don't expect that such a theory will ever be universally accepted, given the refusal of evolution and basic biological science by so many.
This is where I experience my strongest cognitive dissonance. I do not dispute the right of others to believe what they want to believe. I believe in tolerating others' opinions with which I disagree, whether innocuous or hateful. On the other hand, when it comes to allowing something to guide your life when it is so obviously wrong to me on both intuitive and lolgical levels, such as belief in religion or disbelief in evolution, I feel that I should say something, yet I bite my tongue in the name of tolerance. Should I do as Galileo did and challenge the majority opinion because I feel that my stance is enlightened and will eventually become widely accepted, or should I just tolerate the other guy's faith that he is one of the invisible man in the sky's chosen people and is better than me?

Here's the part where I get inflammatory. If you choose to hate me based on this, I acccept that, but I have to get it off my chest.

I believe in intelligent discourse, yet my opponnents believe unwaveringly that the ultimate truth is contained in a single anthology written over the course of thousands of years, mostly the few hundred years after the alleged life and death of a man who allegedly turned water into wine, cured lepers, and rose from the dead, none of which make any sense based on rational scientific thought. I base my arguments on provable data, they base theirs on blind faith in a bunch of hearsay that managed to make it onto paper, and even worse, they think that because it's blind faith in something unprovable, that they are better people than me. I honestly don't feel contempt for most religious people because of this, I feel pity.