As to your (somewhat insulting) remark about me being "fairly scientific," I probably have more science credits under my belt, than you'll ever see, (with a 4.0 average, in those courses), and a life-long interest in both math and science. It IS possible to have a scientific mind, and still be accepting that one may not know everything. The universe is so extremely complex, I believe it would be quite arrogant of me to think that I could, definitively, determine how the world, as we know it, came to be. Yes, we know part of that history, but we may never know all of it. THAT is why I am tolerant of the beliefs of others, when I can not prove their beliefs to be wrong, (unlike you seem to be). You are obviously very intelligent, and I hope you will learn, with age and experience, to be more tolerant of the beliefs of others. You come across, to me, as the cryonics equivalent of a "Jesus freak."
I do come from a very religious background. I was taught that hell was real, and that you need to turn to Jesus to be saved. I finally realized how circular and self-reinforcing all this was after a long and gradual phase of soul-searching, brought on largely by my gradual and reluctant acceptance of evolution as the correct understanding of our origins.
I was a (young-earth) creationist at the time of the "Intelligent Design" movement and sympathized greatly with the argument of irreducible complexity. However, I eventually realized that this argument was easily refuted by the fact that irreducible complexity can be formed by co-opting unrelated mechanisms. To think of evolution as just the gradual refinement of existing structures is a misunderstanding of it. You have to think outside the box in order to understand it. Many genes even have their origins in bacteria and other sources, foreign to the human body. When I realized this, it made me think that evolution might stand a chance at being true. It also affected my philosophy and thinking style, since genes and memes are similar in many ways... I no longer look at ideas as merely "right" or "wrong" in absolute terms, but rather I try to sort them by their potential applicability to a given context. (My training in computer science has influenced this as well.)
I may be considered an atheist, but I am not the same kind that many atheists I meet are. I feel that God memes tend to activate certain neurological functions that can be useful in various contexts. I still speak in tongues on occaison, and feel comfortable asking Jesus into my heart. I don't think he existed as a historical figure, and I think it would be less meaningful to ask him into my heart if he was. I think logic (not only the kind that is consciously processed) is the substance on which faith is predicated, and interpret the Logos of John 1:1 to be "Logic" not "the Word" which strikes me as an unnecessary fuzzy and mystical interpretation.
My interest in cryonics is fuled by the fact that it has the potential to save lives. If it did not, I wouldn't find it particularly interesting. What's exciting about preserving corpses? Thus when people talk about cryonauts as if they were literal (not merely legal) corpses, I get offended and upset. They are basically accusing cryonics of being useless and boring, which it absolutely is not. If people want to be tolerant and respectful of cryonics, the only way to do that is refer to cryonauts in more neutral terms that do not automatically imply irreversibility.