These guys try way too hard to be weird. Just because it seemed like a good idea when you were all on drammamine doesn't mean it really was. They're like the Devendra Banhart of hip hop: trying too hard with nothing to say.

I think the general opinion here is that religion IS art, in a way. Anyway, the idea that "art needs weird" doesn't exactly support the factual claims of the world's various religions.

Should we stop wearing glasses too? Or at least shouldn't all glasses be shaped like goggles?

Surely selkies exist though, right?

He's still right though. He may come off a bit smug to you, but that doesn't in the least discredit him.

This is meant to be a reply to Archmage, but I can't seem to reply directly. I am firmly on the side of science. You can't wiggle out of the burden of proof argument just by claiming it's not empirical.

I'm not too sure about that. It just seems too easy to hide behind the argument that your beliefs are "beyond logic and the senses". It's the same as the god argument: unless given compelling reason to believe it, we shouldn't. There is nothing in our experience to indicate any realm beyond logic and the senses.

Being brought up with the religion of your family and your culture is at least understandable.

it means you have stopped caring about the next Judd Apatow production…I have been an apatheist since the 40-year-old Virgin, more or less.

I don't think this is precisely sound. People are not likely to cite "spirituality" as an answer for how cars work. They're more likely to invoke it in the sense of appreciating art, the way certain music makes you feel, what it means to fall in love, etc.

Both sides may be childish, but one side is right and the other is wrong. Given that both are childish, isn't it still objectively better to be in the right?

Another thing that is off-putting is that Dawkins seems to almost lend a legitimacy to the believers by constantly writing about how they're wrong.

The bottom line is that EVERYONE chooses their own message. People just use the bible to justify their pre-existing beliefs. Proof of this is the fact that there are people who support gay marriage and people who think it is wrong, and people on both sides who claim the bible backs their point of view.
People go into…

It might not be a way of saying it that you agree with, but it isn't wrong. Your way of saying it includes not only your view on the matter, but also the reason you have that view. I don't always provide reasons with my views, but I am ready to provide them if anyone is interested. If asked WHY I don't believe in God,…

Except I don't see how Dawkins is an asshole. He doesn't make movies so he's not in advertisements and rarely on TV. He's not really in anyone's purview other than those that are already interested in the subject matter; so why do you think he's an asshole if you agree with him?

The more time I've spent with the metaphor, the better I like it (particularly since I have no interest in either sports or religion). Like if I hear someone say they're a Cardinals fan, I don't understand it at all. Why them? Does it mean you like the logo? The city?

" So it seems that beliefs don't include an "I don't really know" rider by definition"

I see this is a response to me, but I'm not sure why. I'm totally on board with the false equivalency; I wasn't trying to suggest that it's 50/50 just because neither side has proof. I find that a tiresome and frustrating argument. I have read Hitchens and I guess that's probably where I first saw the idea that the…

"the death toll attributable to sports fans qua sports fans is probably lower"

Or those people that wear those weird rubber shoes with toe-holes who talk about "the natural shape of your foot" and so forth. Though I bet there's a lot of overlap of this type with Linux evangelists.