Since a moderator has stepped in to confront the OP, i will re-enter to clarify my position.
This shouldn't come as news, but believe it or not -- while tacit was so engrossed in expounding the virtues of atheism -- others here were far more interested in discussing
unexplained scientific principles. How
other people's faith came to be such a thorn of fixation in tacit's mind (that it totally tanked this entire thread) is still the only *meaningful* unanswered question. Could it be simply because he intensely desired to circumvent any exploration into
unexplained scientific principles? (At least that pretext is more palatable than some of the other possibilities implied by his unbounded preoccupation).
It seems to me that the issue isn't so much that you have to provide anything, but that you won't or can't. 
Easily falsified... and how/when did such aspects ever become "the issue" anyway -- and who cares?
To question one about their personal faith was not inherent in the initial issue -- but rather, part of the straw man established to derail this thread. One's personal faith is personal. [i.e., the answer ryck might give isn't necessarily the same answer i would give, or the same anyone else (such as Azimov, Edison, Einstein, Faraday, Franklin, Newton, Nimoy, Sagan, Shatner, Zappa, etc., etc., etc.) would give.]
Apart from that, I'm sure you can understand why such statements would be of interest. 
Not really. Just as such "statements" of personal faith would differ from person to person, so would the "interest" level. [i.e., what you might find interesting about ryck's faith isn't necessarily the same as what tacit (or L. Ron Hubbard, or anyone else, etc.) might find of interest. Take for example the infantile inquiries in this thread:
"what color is your god?" -- and --
"does it fit in your pocket?" -- etc. One would assume the members here were more sophisticated than that... but such assumptions can easily be disproved (apparently).
Besides, *none* of the above matters. Personal religious beliefs are not (were never) the issue here, but
unexplained scientific principles are (or were supposed to be).
E.g.,
quantum theory...
Though theories of quantum mechanics continue to evolve to this day, there is a basic framework for the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics which underlies most approaches and can be traced back to the mathematical work of John von Neumann. In other words, discussions about interpretation of the theory, and extensions to it, are now mostly conducted on the basis of shared assumptions about the mathematical foundations.
And even assuming the mathematical foundations are rock solid (i'd like to have Craig on my side here
), other issues embedded in quantum theory entail aspects such as 'the measurement problem' -- somewhat related to (but not the same as) the probabilistic nature involved in Heisenburg's uncertainty principle...
On a different front, von Neumann originally dispatched quantum measurement with his infamous postulate on the collapse of the wavefunction, raising a host of philosophical problems. Over the intervening 70 years, the problem of measurement became an active research area and itself spawned some new formulations of quantum mechanics.
One example of this is
Bell's theorem (John Stewart Bell) which seemed to resolve the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox... [is that right?] but i can't quite seem to piece together all the events in the evolution of quantum theory, or fathom what the various implications are in terms that i (and other laypeople here) can understand and discuss...
The phenomenon of quantum entanglement that is behind violation of Bell's inequality is just one element of quantum physics which cannot be represented by any classical picture of physics; other non-classical elements are complementarity and wavefunction collapse. The problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics is intended to provide a satisfactory picture of these non-classical elements of quantum physics.
I.e., just as Einstein expanded on (or "blew the doors off") Newtonian physics, so now science is searching for something new in which to place its faith. Albert's dream was to find the 'Unified Field Equation' -- but he died before achieving success. A similar quest continues today however (under the ambitious title '
The Theory of Everything'). There is a ton of cool stuff we could be getting into (e.g.,
Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the
many-minds interpretation, and dozens of other items) with an
amicable inquisitive spirit... instead of confrontational [know-it-all] religious debate.
This all connects back to something tacit said earlier about Einstein. Except -- instead of being petty by blaming Einstein's "religion" -- we should be talking about what that outcome meant
scientifically. You know... trying to help each other understand these results and their interpretations (both in terms of science and philosophy). Instead, we get childish comments by people who think they even understand one iota of what patterns Capra might be capable of perceiving. Until someone here can get into explaining (or at least engage in adult conversation about) stuff like the "
quantum mind" and the "
quantum mind/body problem" -- i don't think their other judgements about any members' personal religious feelings could ever be qualified... or realistically relevant in *any* event.
The viewpoint that this thread was ever about religion (or should continue in that vein) is pure dogma.
--
edit: Here is an example of what Einstein's "religion" (hidden variables) was not ready for...
The Problem of Conscious Observation
