Mrzzy, re: your bit about "believing" in the big bang v. "believing" in Biblical Creation: but what about theists who instead see Creation myths as just that--not "myths" in the incorrect negative sense of "falsehood" that the word doesn't really mean, but of ancient, powerful metaphorical stories that aren't historically true--and support the truth (and potential truth) and continued inquiry of modern cosmology and biology--big bang, string theory, bubble theory, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, fossil record, the works.

People (Christians, believers of other faiths, and nonbelievers alike) too often tend to believe that one's "belief in God" means that one literally believes in a white-haired, grumbly old sky-king looking down from a throne with some weird mixture of jealousy, rage, forgiveness, mercy, and indulgence. It's a dangerous assumption to make. To me, God isn't an actual supernatural being, but, in the 20th-century theologian Paul Tillich's words, "the depth and ground of all being." And it's the face of that God that I see in a constantly evolving, bedazzling, bewildering, and infinite creation.

But I tell ya, a lot of nonbelievers simply assume that if you have any religious or spiritual beliefs, you obviously believe factually in silly sky-king (or sky-queen) myths rather than accept the conclusions of good, hard science. With a large number of us, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Chris