I am an atheist, and voted honestly as such (without any need for anonymity). I used to be an epistemological agnostic back in my university days (as opposed to ontological...ontologicals are stupid poo-poos :-), but I discovered that I was only saying that in a needless attempt to be nice to my religious friends. They didn't mind that I was an atheist any more than I minded that they were ordained Lutheran ministers.
Quite an interesting distribution from the respondents in this poll...not heavily weighted on any side of the debate. The thread itself is worthy of comment as well, although I'll offer up a quick bit of background on myself first before I get into that. I have actually been involved in debates against creationists (of the young earth variety), plus many other informal discussions on message boards regarding "science vs religion", and it is quite common that the endgame to this topic always involves some form of "You can't prove <insert deity here> exists" vs "You can't prove <insert deity here>
doesn't exist". So the question is: how does such a dilemma ever get resolved? We all obviously have an opinion (well, except for those stupid ontological agnostics), so how did we ever decide either way if it comes down to such an unanswerable question?
Well, some people try to solve this by focusing on a rigourous definition of what it means to "prove" something. However, these philosophical treatises certainly aren't meant for the layperson, and they most often end up being disregarded as "blatant intellectualism". Plus, since they focus on an objective view of a strict material world, they are heavily weighted toward the scientific side of the debate, which makes it small wonder then that they always seem to find the "God doesn't exist" side as the more common sense approach.
Others have used rebuttal arguments such as "If I can't prove [to the level you require] that Santa Claus doesn't exist, or that unicorns don't exist, would you believe in those too? There are even 'historical records' claiming that both of these beings are real." Not surprisingly, this path doesn't really appeal to either side in the end. It's equivalent to dragging both science and religion down into the muck together, and letting them wallow in the fact that they are both equally stupid. ("They are both beliefs, so
there! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!") Ha!
Myself, I have found that expressing my own experiences (joy, inspiration, wonder, and understanding) that have resulted from the inclusion of science in my life has been the best tool to communicate much that is meaningful. From Carl Sagan's writings that we are all made from "star stuff" (carbon atoms being formed only in the death of a star), to esoteric mathematical objects such as countable and uncountable (and higher) infinities, to Godel's incompleteness theorem and quantum mechanics and special/general relativity, to a simple awareness of environmental concerns (it is true that scientists were the first real environmentalists) that still sees me riding my bike to work even right now in the middle of January...science has given me so much that has enriched my life.
The simple analogy I make is that we all live in houses, but not all houses are made equal. Some can be made of glass, or wood, or brick, etc. Indeed, we can go even further, and say that some houses contain fire and smoke alarms, or even sprinkler systems to protect their occupants. The question we are asking is: which house would you choose as your home? Science has systems in place that have encouraged the replacement of old and dangerous ideas with new ones, and also prevented and fought against the introduction of much that is harmful. With rigour and peer review it has been well deserving of my trust, because all of the skepticism that I would apply to any new idea has already been put in place (sometimes even by the person introducing the idea).
At their heights, both religion and science have shown us the best that humanity has to offer. However, in the end, science has a much stronger foundation that will see it contributing and growing into the future, and as such it will always get my vote.
History has seen the changing of many aspects of this debate, and none moreso than the drying up of any positives from the religious side. Centuries ago, the religious arguments would have referenced the inspiration (musical, art, etc) and joy that grew out of belief in a deity, for at the time such examples were readily at hand. Nowadays, however, the attempt is made to sway people with arguments such as the "horrors of modern living", or the "evil of technology". While there is much that is wrong in this world, with our reliance on gadgetry, bomb-building, and removing our humanity even as we try to use our highly-evolved brains in a vain attempt to better our lives, still the power of understanding is what is needed to help us direct those discoveries in a manner that is for the benefit of all. In the end, that is what we are arguing here.
"Spirituality is the industry of spirit." -- Rory Mitchell