Why do Americans believe in God despite all the evidence?????

[BlondewithaBrain]

Religious people suggests society has morals and ethics because of religion

Here is a scenario; You are to imagine that you’re in a town late at night where you've never been before, and you have no friends and it’s getting dark. And through the darkness, you see coming towards you a group of men, let’s say ten. Do you feel better or worse if you know that they’re just coming from a prayer meeting? The classic tale from a religious person

Well the answer is simple, go to belfast, jerusalem, kabul, bombay, tehran and baghdad. The answer is run.

It is for the people of faith to prove that god exists

it is those who are people of faith who have the explaining to do, who have the justifying to do. If they can't account for anything about the origin of our cosmos or our species, if they say that without them, we’d be without morals and make us seem as if we are merely animals without faith, if further, everybody can name an instance where religion has made people actually behave worse to one another and act as a retardant upon the advances of knowledge and science and information, I submit that the case to be made is theirs rather than mine. And we have a better tradition. We’re not just arid secularists and materialists, we on the atheist side. Religion changes the rules to fit the time and its agenda. We never have.

Evidence to show religious people why it is unamerican to believe in God
We can point, through the Hubble telescope, the fantastic, awe-inspiring majestic pictures that are being taken now of the outer limits of our universe, and who’s going to turn away from those pictures and start gaping again at the burning bush? We have smaller microscopes that can examine for us the miracles of the interior of the double helix and the sheer beauty of that. The natural world is wonderful enough, more wonderful than anything conjured by the fools who believe in astrology or the supernatural. And we have a better tradition politically against the popes and the imams and the witch doctors and the divine right of kings and the whole long tradition of civic repression combined with religion that's known as theocracy.

We have created in the United States, the only country in the history of the world written on founding documents testable, organized, works in progress based on the theory of human liberation and the only constitution in the history of world that says that there shall be a separation between the church and the state. God is never mentioned in the United States Constitution except in order to limit religion and keep it out of politics and put it under legal control. This achievement was described by President Jefferson. People forget what it used to be like, see how the Christians loved each other, how they've tried to repeat the European pattern of one religious sect repressing and torturing another one. And as you probably know, the president wrote back and said, “No, you may be assured that there will ever be in this country a wall of separation between the church and the state.” So I have a new slogan and take it with you and it goes like this, “Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall.”

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

I agree it is difficult to argue that witnessing a physically manifested God walking among us does not constitute rational evidence.  It is usually best to ask what evidence would suffice, if the other person states "none", there is no need to continue the dialogue. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Wall of Separation" does not mean that belief in itself is outlawed or "unAmerican". The people who usually call things unAmerican are fascists and paranoid authoritarians.

You know who some of the first people to have religious freedom in the colonies were? Quakers of all people. 

[BlondewithaBrain]

"Wall of Separation" does not mean that belief in itself is outlawed or "unAmerican". The people who usually call things unAmerican are fascists and paranoid authoritarians.

You know who some of the first people to have religious freedom in the colonies were? Quakers of all people.  

Well, in the United States, you have the most advanced, wealthy, most powerful nation in probably the history of the world, and you have probably the most freedom-loving, you know, almost inventing—not inventing but really espousing the philosophy of freedom and individuality and trying to, you know, propagate that throughout the world. Yet, you also have the most religious nation. Well, it's true. I mean, you can argue with the methods but I mean, there's no question that, like, we are trying to promote democracy. And yet you have, the most religious nation. You have like people going to church is probably an all-time high. Religious people affect who are leaders are, you know, to a great degree. People can say there is a contradiction which i tried to point out in the origins of the post.

So heres a notion for you the section of the constitution means you can have religious pluralism. Now for example where I come from, originally (you can probably tell I was born in England), the head of the church is the head of the state and the head of the armed forces. It's an official church and you have to pay for it and whether you want to or not. And on the moment that Her Majesty the Queen expires, the head of the Church of England will become a bat-eared half-Muslim with no taste in women as far as I can see, the lugubrious Prince Charles, who goes to classes on Islam and talks to plants and is a loon. That’s what you get for founding a church on the family values of Henry VIII.

In the United States, you can't have any of that. That'd be completely unconstitutional. You can belong to any church you want, the government has nothing to do with that. And people I think take a Toquevillian view, if you like, of the church. They go, many of them, to church for social reasons. Some of them for ethnic ones, some of them for charitable, some of them for community reasons as you might say.
 "Okay, so you said you are a Baptist minister?" "Yes." "Well, do you believe in John Calvin's teaching on predestination and hell fire?" "Why do you want to know?" "Well, only because you said you were a Baptist." "Yeah, but I mean I’m a Southern Baptist, you know that kind." Well, come one. They don’t love the question. They—ask Catholics if they really believe what their church teaches or what the Pope tells them. Of course they don’t for the most part.

The fastest growing group of people in the country has been measured as being those of who have no belief or who are atheists. By far the fastest growing, it’s doubled in the last ten years. People are evidently lying to the opinion polls, that there are not enough churches in the country—there are plenty of them. They’re not enough to take all the people who say that they go to them, just couldn’t be done, couldn’t fit them in. I don’t think people who have doubts about religion are going to tell them to opinion pollsters who call them up at dinner time. They will say, "Yes, I am a Methodist." or whatever it is, they’re not going say "I sometimes wonder if John Wesley was really the man." Not when the multiple choice boxes are being gone through.

So there are people who think that that’s the way to go politically be it the Republican Party. The last president played on it and got power through it, for example, thinks that to say someone is person of faith is axiomatically to confer a compliment on them. And if you remember, he did it to Vladimir Putin and Bush meets and says right away, “Right away, well, I could tell by looking into his eyes and seeing that he was wearing his grandmother’s crucifix, that he was just the chap for me.”

Now, in a strong field, I think that’s the stupidest thing Bush has said. And he must, I think, occasionally regret it. I wonder has Vladimir Putin ever worn his grandmother’s crucifix since? Had he ever been seen wearing it before? Or did he just think this should be enough for the president of the United States? Because if so, it would show that religion was not just metaphysically incorrect, but as I have I believe said, a danger and a poison to all of us. If our republic can be—and its president can be pushed over, like that, like someone offering garlic to a vampire, then we really are in trouble.

Thats why the Republican Party panders to the weak-minded. Its easier to be scared than brave. its easier to believe in fiction than fact. Thats why republicans win elections.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh, my…. Where do I even begin?

There’s more to religion than simply “God of the Gaps Theories”. It’s not a matter of explaining how things happen, but why. Many of the mistaken notions of science widely believed centuries ago were in taken into religious narratives as background details, and these, unsurprisingly, were completely wrong. There is however, one God-of-the-Gaps-esq thought I hold, that free will necessitates some sort of supernatural power. The essence of human consciousness is very different from every other idea we encounter in the physical world. If the mind is simply a chemical reaction, then we are only capable of acting in either a prediscribed manner or at random, there can, at least in my opinion, be no free choice. There are some out there who ascrible to the idea that both free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion that’s double-think.

Regarding religious people wishing to be slaves. Case Study North Korea
North Korea is the most religious state in the world. I wondered, what would it be like praising God and thanking him all day and all night? Well, look at North Korea, it is a completely worshipful state. It's set up only to do that, for adoration and it’s only one short of a trinity. They have a father and the son, as you know, the Dear Leader and the Great Leader. The father is still the president of the country. He’s been dead for fifteen years, but Kim Jong-il, the little one, is only the head of the party and the Army. His father is still the president, head of the state. Now circumstances have since changed maybe he will be the holy ghost? but in theory what you have in North Korea is what you might call a necrocracy or what I also called them thanatocracy. One—just one short of a trinity: father, son, maybe no holy ghost - give it a few weeks, but they do say that when the birth of the younger one took place, the birds of Korea sang in Korean to mark the occasion. This I’ve checked. It did not happen. Take my word for it. It didn't occur and I suppose I should add they don’t threaten to follow you after you're dead. You can leave North Korea. You can get out of their hell and their paradise by dying. Out of the Christian and Muslim one, you cannot. This is the wish to be a slave. And in my view, it’s poisonous of human relations.

There is a grain of truth here, that religion does require a certain degree of obedience and humbling of one’s self, which by the way, are often useful characteristics in the secular world as well. Humility makes people nicer, and work harder. Obedience often leads people to make better decisions and better law-abiding citizens. Of course this bit is a pretty extreme deviation from what virtually all of the major world religions are.

Religious people suggests society has morals and ethics because of religion

Here is a scenario; You are to imagine that you’re in a town late at night where you've never been before, and you have no friends and it’s getting dark. And through the darkness, you see coming towards you a group of men, let’s say ten. Do you feel better or worse if you know that they’re just coming from a prayer meeting? The classic tale from a religious person

Well the answer is simple, go to belfast, jerusalem, kabul, bombay, tehran and baghdad. The answer is run.

Well, what about in Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, St. Louis, or Chicago? I’d rather they came from a prayer meeting in any city besides perhaps the ones you just mentioned. And in most cases in the other cities, the religious beliefs of the opposing factions are just proxies for a struggle between two ethnic groups. Having them come from a prayer meeting isn’t going to matter much, other than to say they’re all on one side of the struggle.

Evidence to show religious people why it is unamerican to believe in God
We can point, through the Hubble telescope, the fantastic, awe-inspiring majestic pictures that are being taken now of the outer limits of our universe, and who’s going to turn away from those pictures and start gaping again at the burning bush? We have smaller microscopes that can examine for us the miracles of the interior of the double helix and the sheer beauty of that. The natural world is wonderful enough, more wonderful than anything conjured by the fools who believe in astrology or the supernatural. And we have a better tradition politically against the popes and the imams and the witch doctors and the divine right of kings and the whole long tradition of civic repression combined with religion that's known as theocracy.

The point of the burning bush wasn’t that a bush was on fire, that happens all the time. The point was that God came out of it and spoke. See my original point about God-of-the-Gaps theories.

And we have a better tradition politically against the popes and the imams and the witch doctors and the divine right of kings and the whole long tradition of civic repression combined with religion that's known as theocracy.

If you proclaim science as your “tradition” then you may want to revisit the uglier points along its history. You realize that Francis Galton was a eugenicist? And Alfred Wallace believe in lots of crazy occult objects? There are entire books written about how Carl Linnaeus manipulated the naming scheme within the animal kingdom to effect the political outcome of the wet nursing debate. “Science” itself is not above political manipulations either. It never was and it never will be. People, in their human imperfection, use positions of success for personal gain and power no matter what field you’re in. The idea that we can somehow throw out religious “traditions” in favor of scientific “traditions” because they are free of corruption is utterly ridiculous. All ideas have a somewhat twisted past.

We have created in the United States, the only country in the history of the world written on founding documents testable, organized, works in progress based on the theory of human liberation and the only constitution in the history of world that says that there shall be a separation between the church and the state. God is never mentioned in the United States Constitution except in order to limit religion and keep it out of politics and put it under legal control. This achievement was described by President Jefferson. People forget what it used to be like, see how the Christians loved each other, how they've tried to repeat the European pattern of one religious sect repressing and torturing another one. And as you probably know, the president wrote back and said, “No, you may be assured that there will ever be in this country a wall of separation between the church and the state.” So I have a new slogan and take it with you and it goes like this, “Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall.”

This section is wildly untrue. The text of the First Amendment is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It never mandates a “separation of church and state”; that was a supreme court ruling in the 1960s not the constitutions itself. Also, the First Amendment did not put religion under legal control. That’s completely false. It guarenteed the  free practice of religion. That’s the exact opposite of placing it under legal control. The constitution protected religion from legal control.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This style of atheist argumentation is my trashiest guilty pleasure since Strawberry Panic. Keep it coming!

TJ is, as is often the case in these sorts of discussions, fighting the good fight better than I probably could.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Oh, my…. Where do I even begin?

I thought about responding, but correcting the large number of factual and logical errors would have just taken too much time.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

This style of atheist argumentation is my trashiest guilty pleasure since Strawberry Panic.

Are you Asian?  If not, how on earth did you acquire such and interest/knowledge of all things Asian?

Just curious.

[© tweed]

Where is the source of faith?
Well, here’s how religion has this effect, in my opinion: it is derived from the childhood of our species, from the bawling, fearful period of infancy. It comes from the time when we did not know that we lived on an orb; we thought we lived on a disc. And we did not know that we went around the sun or that the sky was not a dome; when we didn’t know that there was a germ theory to explain disease, and innumerable theories for the explanation of things like famine. It comes from a time when we had no good answers, but because we are pattern-seeking animals (a good thing about us), and because we will prefer even a conspiracy theory or a junk theory to no theory at all (a bad thing about us). This is and was our first attempt of philosophy, just as in some ways, it was our first attempt at science, and it was all founded on and remains founded on a complete misapprehension about the origins, first of the universe, and second, about human nature.

isn't this just essentially stolen from Civilization and Its Discontents?

[Gustaf]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

Since his physical presence has never been demonstrated, it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he exists, he doesn't want to manifest himself physically. This changes nothing to the question of God's existence.

[FloridaRepublican]

Because there's no such thing as evidence that disproves God's existence.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This style of atheist argumentation is my trashiest guilty pleasure since Strawberry Panic.

Are you Asian?  If not, how on earth did you acquire such and interest/knowledge of all things Asian?

Just curious.

Nope, white ethnic mix, the sorts of ethnicities that you'd expect from somebody whose family is from the greater Springfield, Massachusetts area. I had a disproportionately formative experience with a Japanese exchange student when I was a lot younger (learning to use the kiln so we could make tea ceremony bowls together in second-grade art class was involved). I think I may have had a precocious crush on her but I'm not entirely sure.

Where is the source of faith?
Well, here’s how religion has this effect, in my opinion: it is derived from the childhood of our species, from the bawling, fearful period of infancy. It comes from the time when we did not know that we lived on an orb; we thought we lived on a disc. And we did not know that we went around the sun or that the sky was not a dome; when we didn’t know that there was a germ theory to explain disease, and innumerable theories for the explanation of things like famine. It comes from a time when we had no good answers, but because we are pattern-seeking animals (a good thing about us), and because we will prefer even a conspiracy theory or a junk theory to no theory at all (a bad thing about us). This is and was our first attempt of philosophy, just as in some ways, it was our first attempt at science, and it was all founded on and remains founded on a complete misapprehension about the origins, first of the universe, and second, about human nature.

isn't this just essentially stolen from Civilization and Its Discontents?

Hell, parts of her argument are stolen word-for-word from Christopher Hitchens. As well as not necessarily, um, serving the debate very well, I feel like this is also in somewhat questionable taste at the moment.

[© tweed]

it's come time to speculate if Blondwithabrain is yet another incarnation of the troll of yore, nomorelies.


the ages, femininity, aspects of the grammar, and purported British heritage match up.


Tweed Action strikes again.

[Gustaf]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

Since his physical presence has never been demonstrated, it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he exists, he doesn't want to manifest himself physically. This changes nothing to the question of God's existence.

But most people who believe in God do believe that he has manifested himself physically at some point.

Regardless, that's beside the point. Your claim was that God's existence definitionally somehow fell outside of the empirically observable. That's hardly true.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

I think I may have had a precocious crush on her but I'm not entirely sure.

You need not say anymore.

Hell, parts of her argument are stolen word-for-word from Christopher Hitchens.

I was also trying to play "Guess Which Book I Read in the Last 5 Years", but I think you are the winner.  "Alex, what is...God is Not Great."

[Mechaman]

I must say that I am very impressed with how well you've weaved this latest sock Kyle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

Since his physical presence has never been demonstrated, it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he exists, he doesn't want to manifest himself physically. This changes nothing to the question of God's existence.

But most people who believe in God do believe that he has manifested himself physically at some point.

Regardless, that's beside the point. Your claim was that God's existence definitionally somehow fell outside of the empirically observable. That's hardly true.

I think most people who believe in God are wrong on many issues, though not necessarily on God's existence.

Put it as you want, but I've never heard any convincing rational argument for or against God's existence, neither do I think it's possible to make one.

[Gustaf]

"God" and "evidence" are two words which can never be associated.

Until it is quite evident.. At which point, we're f**ked.

What do you mean ? I was merely pointing that rational evidence can never demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God.

That's not true. If God physically manifested himself and did stuff I think it would definitely constitute rational evidence for his existence.

Of course, if you want to consider such a possibility...

Whether you think that is practically possible is irrelevant. Regardless, it seems odd to discuss the issue of God's existence without wanting to consider the possibility of him existing.

For example, I don't think unicorns exist but I have no problem considering the possibility and recognizing that if a unicorn showed up at my house it would be easy to verify its existence.

God's existence and the idea he could manifest himself physically are two different issues. The second one is a rational question indeed, and I think evidence clearly tends to indicate that there's no physical manifestation of God which has been rationally demonstrated. The first one is, however, a metaphysical question that mere rationality can not anwer.

If God exists, why wouldn't he able to manifest himself physically?

Since his physical presence has never been demonstrated, it's fairly reasonable to assume that if he exists, he doesn't want to manifest himself physically. This changes nothing to the question of God's existence.

But most people who believe in God do believe that he has manifested himself physically at some point.

Regardless, that's beside the point. Your claim was that God's existence definitionally somehow fell outside of the empirically observable. That's hardly true.

I think most people who believe in God are wrong on many issues, though not necessarily on God's existence.

Put it as you want, but I've never heard any convincing rational argument for or against God's existence, neither do I think it's possible to make one.

That's another issue. I wouldn't disagree with saying that we've seen no rational evidence for or against God's existence.

That's different from saying that there could never be or that it is impossible.

[memphis]

Is there anyone more verbose than a proselytizing atheist?

Jmfsct wasn't exactly known for his brevity. He even posted weekly youtube videos. You prefer bumper sticker slogans?

[dead0man]

Is there anyone more verbose than a proselytizing atheist?

Jmfsct wasn't exactly known for his brevity. He even posted weekly youtube videos. You prefer bumper sticker slogans?

Indeed, but the Wall O' Text in the OP was very uhhhh..."impressive" really isn't the right word.

[John Dibble]

As to the question of "Why do Americans believe in God despite all the evidence?" the reasons why people believe are not particularly different from why anyone believes in such things.

Primarily it comes down to the rather simple fact that most people don't actually understand what constitutes legitimate evidence and are not trained to think critically. As such they can be more easily fooled into believing arguments that merely sound good when they aren't examined thoroughly or just appeal to them emotionally. Those raised to be religious also had the idea ingrained into them, and various psychological factors make it difficult for many of them to change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

As to why America in particular is more religious than most other developed Western nations, that might be a little more complicated. I doubt the people in those other nations are really that much more versed in critical thinking than most Americans are, and as such I suspect many of the non-believers are apatheists and are just non-believers because they weren't raised to be religious and their culture doesn't put a heavy emphasis on being religious. One reason for that which may be valid is that the states had official religions for long enough that those religions didn't really have to compete aggressively for followers at most points, and by the time freedom of religion was popularized their influence just faded out. America on the other hand had no state church, so the various beliefs had to compete more aggressively to both keep and attract followers, and so a more religious environment developed and was sustained and people were raised more religiously.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm in love with nearly everything about this thread. Bravo, Atlas Forum.

[Ban my account ffs!]

As to the question of "Why do Americans believe in God despite all the evidence?" the reasons why people believe are not particularly different from why anyone believes in such things.

Primarily it comes down to the rather simple fact that most people don't actually understand what constitutes legitimate evidence and are not trained to think critically. As such they can be more easily fooled into believing arguments that merely sound good when they aren't examined thoroughly or just appeal to them emotionally. Those raised to be religious also had the idea ingrained into them, and various psychological factors make it difficult for many of them to change their minds even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

As to why America in particular is more religious than most other developed Western nations, that might be a little more complicated. I doubt the people in those other nations are really that much more versed in critical thinking than most Americans are, and as such I suspect many of the non-believers are apatheists and are just non-believers because they weren't raised to be religious and their culture doesn't put a heavy emphasis on being religious. One reason for that which may be valid is that the states had official religions for long enough that those religions didn't really have to compete aggressively for followers at most points, and by the time freedom of religion was popularized their influence just faded out. America on the other hand had no state church, so the various beliefs had to compete more aggressively to both keep and attract followers, and so a more religious environment developed and was sustained and people were raised more religiously.

Lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence.  Hell, for all we know.. our entire universe could just be one bubble of innumerable bubbles rising out of God's ass in the pool at his local Holiday Inn Express.  The Big Bang could plausibly have been the ejection of the building blocks of our universe through God's anus.  And the expansion of our universe is simply the pressure of the water around it lessening as we rise to the surface.  When we get there... poof... we disperse.

Now, I understand that that is not so much critical thinking as much as using my imagination.  But the flaw of critical thinking is that it doesn't take into account the known unknowns very well and certainly doesn't even touch the unknown unknowns.  In fact, almost all critical thinking takes place in the realm of unknown knowns... crap that we know we know but are too afraid to just admit it and instead spend $billions trying to prove.