StuffwotIfink:
You make some good points and I and I don't disagree with a lot of it.
However my world does not revolve around belief or definitive conclusions, I feel for me personally that would be foolhardy to do so. Let's say my "jury" is always out studying the evidence - while never reaching a verdict, pertinent evidence and facts are being considered while everything proven to be factual is retained. The important part is the pertinent evidence, as there may be evidence that is yet to be proven but if that evidence doesn't have any baring or influence on my investigational processes, I have the sort of mind which immediately trash cans it because I don't see the point in cluttering my mind with irrelevant information.
If something can't be proven or disproven - like aliens and UFOs - since they don't affect the planet in any real way, I would rather not bother wasting my time contemplating the issue. If evidence is made available, obviously I'll adjust my thinking.
Just wanted to say thank you for the video you posted: Is Religion a mental illness? Ya gotta be cazy to think so. I enjoyed the reasoning very much and certainly helps me understand the mentality a lot better.