As for the length of my responses, this is a free medium, and happens to be my own personal corner. I won't censor myself for someone else's sensibilities elsewhere (with regard to my opinions, I am not a crass person so would not and will not resort to name calling in any scenario) and I certainly won't here.

On a side note, your back-handed and half-veiled attempt to paint my responses as parroting are vapid at best, and while you might be able to accurately say that your responses are "creative" that creativity is not an indication of validity or measure of the strength of your argument. At best I paraphrase, I do not copy or paste, nor do I ever promote arguments which I do not agree with, and understand to varying degrees. Also, the insinuation that I was dishonest about some point(s) (what points exactly?) is pretty pretentious.

I make no bones about being an atheist, I have not been presented with evidence that is sufficient to compel me to accept the claims about <b>any</b> deity, and I'm not going to fake it out of fear, or for treats, or to conform. That being said, I am my own person and being an atheist is only a single part of it. You only see this one aspect because this is the only aspect I've chosen to display in this context, and the only one I'm interested in with regard to this discussion. I'm "vocal" about this because religions have consistantly shown themselves to be a placebo (fixt) at best and an active harm at worst. They promote intolerance, hinder scientific progression, demand unthinking submission, and actively impede social reform.

*3* It would be a lie for me to say that my lack of belief in any deities doesn't affect my perception, of course it does *where it's relevant to do so*. When I consider an issue I do not think to myself "what would an atheist think", I consider the issue as the information merits. For example: I consider evolution as a reasonable explanation as I can see the countless benefits that this field has contributed to medical and biological science.

-Digression: on the topic of evolution, it is the best explanation currently available. ID/creationism on the other hand is effectively magic, it has absolutely no explanatory value (in fact it raises far more questions that it pretends to answer), and has no real world applications. As for your comment about civil law, creationism has failed repeatedly when put under scrutiny.

*2* ID? How did intelligent design come into this discussion. I am not an atheist because I accept evolution (though I do) or vice-versa. I am an atheist because every assertion I've come across inevitably relies on unverified, and often untenable assertions, anecdotal evidence often of the third and fourth hand variety, and outright lies. As an honest person I can not and will not assume knowledge I do not have, as such, I reject the assertion until it can be verified.

Three points:

*1* Reality is not a democracy. Things can not be voted in and out of existance, and that which <b>is or is not</b> existent is such regardless of how many people agree or disagree. Existence is or is not regardless of how strongly you feel about it. You have yet to provide any evidence at all despite you assertion that you have it, and frankly, as the one making the claim, the sole burden of proof is on you.

So my position, with regard to belief in a deity (since the jist of your comments seem to indicate that my "world view" = atheism, which is absurd at best), is based upon a lack of evidence for the assertion. I do not, and will not, accept a claim that defies logic just because a) you really want me to, b) everyone else does, c) you feel really strongly about it, d) it moght make me feel good, e) you have a story about something strange happening somewhere.

Verifiy. Don't bother trying to tell me something is truth when all you have is conjecture and/or prettily strung together words.

I did not avoid your question.. You ask how I know my "world view" is correct, and I responded by pointing out that, as I indicated in the *About me* section, I do not "know with 100% certainty" that it is "correct". I do not know <b>anything</b> with absolute certainty, and I'm profoundly suspicious of people who claim absolute certainty. What I <b>do</b> have is reasonable degrees. For example: I "know" that the earth will keep spinning even though I accept that there's a possibility (however slim) that something could happen to stop it.

:)