Re: Faith aint dying soon
Stating your opinion isn't a point. 
You sought to show that atheists do not elevate law, but your example was not the sort of law anyone accused atheists of elevating. If you were being ironic, you were implying you agreed with The Yell that atheists do elevate law to the position of absolute authority in this world. Being ironic, pointing out that atheists do not support sharia would be a clever, humorous way of ducking the issue and pretending you didn't elevate man's laws to sacred authority, but asserting that you accept what The Yell said as true. (because your 'we don't support sharia!' comment was a reference to an obvious and undisputed fact which makes absolutely no case against his statement--which you responded to in no way at any point)
If you were being ironic, you were agreeing with The Yell's statement that "atheist societies make human laws sacred." If you did not intend to do so, you are very confused. In any event, your statement certainly didn't voice disagreement, let alone provide any point to that end.
" but my remark was still specifically targeted at religion not faith."
This thread is about faith. Religion is faith. You can equivocate all you want, but you're not disagreeing with a word I said in doing so.
"This kind of emotion is developed differently amongst people and mostly dependent on DNA. "
Have studies shown evidence of this? Do they discriminate between genetic material predisposed to result more broadly between emotionalism and "spirituality," as you claim here? From your following statements, it appears that you're just referencing the fact that some people are more emotional than others, and you're claiming that evidence has shown significant correlations between emotionalism and certain genes.
So, some people are more emotional than others. Do you have evidence that it is/can be genetic? Do you have evidence that these people are more likely to be religious? Now that'd be an interesting finding/point. If you had any evidence that it's true.
"Many libertarians are atheists. How does that fit in? I'm an atheist and take offense in being put in one large basket with communists. Its a generalization no more. Stats say what you want them to say."
I cited a statistic (I'm sorry I couldn't find better ones quickly at my leisure. I have seen them. I have read about them.). You have cited nothing. I'm confident that I could find more and better sources, had I any reason to. But you have no sources. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for your claim. In fact, you're even going so far as to pretend that statistics aren't real math and mean nothing because you don't understand them. That's just bizarre.
It's not a generalization, it's a mathematical fact as measured scientifically. Good statistics say the truth about what's measured. I'd find actual statistics, except that you have none at all which dispute my claim and the reference on that page. You've already openly stated that you wouldn't accept even academic and peer-reviewed statistics anyway, so I'm not going to bother looking more. I've seen various surveys correlating religion/party affiliation, and all have shown the faithless leaning heavily toward big-government parties. I've recently seen an academic study correlating faithlessness and big-government ideology, finding a strong positive correlation.
Call it whatever you want; it's the truth, you just don't like it.
Edit: I have no faith in anything, by the way. The notion that I called all atheists communists is ridiculous. I'm not trying to defend any belief as rational or irrational or demonize anyone. But I have a mild interest in this stuff and have read about various surveys and one particular academic study which I found fascinating. If you can't do better than "well I don't like those numbers--in fact, I reject the meaning of all numbers!" you're not disputing anything I've said, just voicing discontent with it.
