Alright, I want to clarify a few things in my previous post.

First of all... That last bit of judgement, "isn't [it] more beautiful if...", is disconcerting when I reread it. I stand by what I wrote, but I can see how it would lead to an incomplete picture of the "leap" I made. There's more to it; I just haven't gotten to writing it all yet.

Second of all, the difference between atheism and agnosticism. Here's the thing... and tighten your shoe laces because I'm about to issue a few sweeping generalizations... Nihilism is beautiful. In Christian circles, we occasionally talk about "other" worldviews which "lead to nihilism" when taken at their extremes, and then we just stop. Once our conversation touches nihilism we assume hopelessness and depression and get pictures in our head of sad persons on the road to self-destruction, and then we don't elaborate on what nihilism really is. It doesn't have to be depressing. It doesn't necessarily lead to a worldview where one can do whatever one wants. Nihilists are not certainly sociopaths. Nihilism has an undeservedly bad reputation. I'm not going to go into depth about it in this post because it's off topic, but maybe later if I remember to. I encourage you to think about it.

Now the big one -- shoelaces -- atheism is just lazy nihilism. That's right. All your atheist science can be done without any thought about philosophy and the "meaning" of your existence; in fact, many Christians are doing the same exact science. There really isn't anything in "science" that "disproves God", and besides that most of it is truly just "best guess". Much of what our "science" textbooks teach is speculative theory masquerading as science (thank you Mr. J.G. Defares for putting is so eloquently). The point is, it takes very little depth of philosophical thought to be an atheist. I guess the decisive question here is: is philosophy necessary? Well, to be honest, that's a difficult one to argue with someone who doesn't philosophize. I suppose it's equally difficult to answer, "outside of what we as animals naturally need to learn to survive, is learning about the sciences necessary?". The difference, I suppose, between a "only-atheist" scientist and any other scientist is that the others can ponder their existence while they discover the substance of it.

Someone might ask, what is so lazy about atheist philosophy? Well, atheist beliefs are summed up in 4 words: "I believe in nothing". Any and all philosophical effort I've ever seen on the part of an atheist has not been to advance his or her own worldview, but instead to discredit the worldview of others.

Now agnostics... There are a few different definitions of agnosticism out there, but it seems that agnosticism is basically atheism en rout to just about anything else. Agnosticism is respectable in that it is constantly learning and growing. An agnostic who is satisfied with what he currently believes is philosophically dead, and cannot really be called an agnostic. Also, an agnostic who is closed-minded to anything which he has not personally found beyond doubt to be false is a failure.

That's it. Now you guys have heard my rant about atheism and agnosticism, so you know what perspective I'm coming from when I mention them and when I build ideas around them.

"Maybe someday long after I'm dead someone will read these and know me as I wish that I could be known, and love me as I wish that I could be loved."

Oh! Oh! ETA! I've just started reading Descartes, and I got a really good quote. Here it goes:
"It seemed to me that I might meet with much more truth in the reasonings that each man makes on the matters that specially concern him, and the issue of which would very soon punish him if he made a wrong judgment, than in the case of those made by a man of letters in his study touching speculations which lead to no result, and which bring about no other consequences to himself excepting that he will be all the more vain the more they are removed from common sense, since in this case it proves him to have employed so much the more ingenuity and skill in trying to make them seem probable. And I always had an excessive desire to learn to distinguish the true from the false, in order to see clearly in my actions and to walk with confidence in this life."
I like the way he puts this, but I personally prefer (and presently endeavor to articulate) a more... boolean(?)... motivation than "excessive desire...to walk with confidence".