Ive been watching and subscribing to several channels that promote debunking the idea of Intelligent Design. While I agree that Creationism should only be confined to the Church or a religious studies class, I do not agree with the notion religion should be abolished or through insulting people, one can somehow remove anothers faith. I want to state that I consider myself an Atheist. I do not see a god in my life, nor do I need one to carry on my existence. I have been physically attacked for my beliefs, so I personally find it insulting that some have confessed to only being an atheist because it sounded bad ass or rebellious or sinister. This is not my motivation. I understand for some people, religion is a sort of security blanket. It helps people cope with life, make sense of the randomness, or give a greater meaning. I believe in spirituality; I see it as the psyche, which is Greek for soul—that precious commodity of religious belief. The spirit is a highly romanticized idea of the experience of living. Its all semantics: the mind, sense of self, ego, consciousness, psyche, soul, spirit. There are several Atheists on YouTube saying, Atheism is not a religion, but it sure does look like it: several symbols of the belief system, internationally recognized leaders, a worshipping of the doctrine of science, formal organizing, and a Bible of sorts with The Origin of Species. In the effort to explain the Atheists ideals, several of the philosophers and a few of the scientists on here, have referred to Richard Dawkins and particularly his book, The God Delusion. I admit, the first Ive ever heard of the man was the infamous South Park episode. Ive never depended on Atheist philosophers to shape my ideals. It seems to me that using Dawkins as a scientific and atheistic icon is counterproductive. Some theists believe that belief in evolution is claiming there is no god. So all efforts to sway the religious to the scientific will be immensely difficult. Dawkins is, I understand, a revered evolutionary biologist who took his professional conclusions to heart and reinterpreted those as his religious ideology. Therefore, to some, he illustrates that studying evolution leads one to atheism. Religion and science are not enemies when the ideologies are properly balanced. I believe that religion and science can coexist, and I dare say the scientist here believe that too, as long as religion is not bastardizing or manipulating science. It is not the agenda of science to remove religion from the world, although science has always found opposition from religion. Yet I think that if the scientists are trying to dismantle religion, the natural sciences are not the most effective avenue. Since religious beliefs are rooted in a psychological need to rationalize the physical world, then isnt the most effective argument against religion psychology and not evolutionary biology, cosmology, or abiogenesis? You cant apply the basic mechanisms of religion and science to each other: faith doesnt work in science and logic doesnt work in religion. It is futile to attempt to sway the faithful with logic. The more you try to sway them, the more they will see this as a test of faith, and when faith is tested and prevails, it grows stronger. Plus it puts them on the defensive and they will start attacking you. So, what to do? When one side is being an aggressor, the other needs to assert civil rights or human rights. More often than not, it is religion infringing on science, and science needs to continue to fight for its integrity. It is imperative for the scientists to state, No one is taking away your religionWe are simply asserting our civil rights or human rights or professional rightsGood fences make good neighbors If the scientists can bear that people pray, wish on stars, knock on wood, cross fingers, and so on, then religion should bear that science explains nature, and it may challenge beliefs.