Had to get out from infront of my computer at the house and get to the office...but I want to finish my post above:
See I believe in science, but I'm not nieve enough to feel like we have reached the zenith of human knowledge, there are things out there that we don't understand, there are more rules governing the universe than we have on the books, just because we haven't labeled them and discovered their laws, doesn't mean they don't exist.
THis same reasoning is what has lead me to be agnostic (with buddhist tendencies) For me, I believe it is extremely closeminded to pick a religion since none of them are based on evidence, only faith, all were mad by men and men are faleable. On the other side of the coin, FOR ME I believe it is just as closed minded to be an athiest, same amount of lack of proof, athiesm is based on faith also......with either path, certain reasoning can be used (some more sound than others) to bring you up to a point that is very close to your chosen conclusion, but it allways requires a leap of faith to either declare there is a god or there isn't a god. I find it kinda funny when the 2 factions fight since they both have the same argument, and you can't argue faith.
Regardless of any of this, I am able to work the 12 steps of NA...thats what I was getting at.