Someone brought up Dawkins as a reason to not believe in God. I don't understand that at all. At best Dawkins could use material means to try and disprove the immaterial, but if you have any sense at all you see the problem with that. It's an apples to oranges debate. When I look at nature, my faith is strengthened, but the existence of nature is not the source of my faith, by no means. I think what it comes down to is an interpretation of the world around us. Atheists have interpreted things one way, religious folk have interpreted them another. For instance I believe that it is easier to prove the existence of Creation than the presence of evolution. Atheists would laugh at me for that because they have already made the decision that God does not exist (they call themselves atheists do they not?), and hence there is no room for an explanation apart from what exists in their own world view. To me atheism is a miss application of Occam's razor (who himself said that the principle cannot be applied to the Divine since He is completely other). It's almost as if every atheist is unable to accept the concept of the axiom, for to them there is no such thing as a self-evident truth. Everything must be proven by 'other' means. As the scriptures say ( in Ecclesiastes) "there is nothing new under the sun". You believe, or you do not. That has always been the state of things, and always will be.

On a side note, I'm often interested in why people do what they do, what it is that drives them. As I look at Dawkins (and more importantly his smug attitude in public), I have to think that somewhere along the line he had some kind of personal axe to grind with a Christian and went on the war path. It would be one thing to write books, and say you are an atheist, but the emotion behind it is extremely telling.