Here's a very interesting article written by a guy called Frank Schaefer.
I understand that he is a christian and he speaks of the new atheist movement in a very intelligent way - proof that religion and intelligence aren't entirely mutually exclusive, it's just hard to find both in the same person -:

http://www.alternet.org/belief/143674/are_the_%22new_atheists%22_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists?page=2

You know that there is now way to prove nor disprove God. But you find comfort in believing that God does not exist. Please explain why, because I just dont' understand.

What comfort is there to be found in believing the opposite, that He does exist?
He created us long time ago, threw us out of the Garden of Delights shortly afterwards condamning us to mortality and suffering while doing so, doesn't seem to be able to annihalite a renegade angel He Himself created, tried to reinvent Himself as the Guide of His people without actually ever achieving the poetic promise of those thousand years of peace, dressed Himself up as a simple Man of great wisdom to end up being crucified by popular demand and hasn't really been heard off ever since. Oh, sorry, I forgot, he found this guy in cave or something and said: 'Dude, writing this down, you'll love it' and started dictating the Qu'ran. And he left some golden plates in the woods with the book of Mormon written on it too.

Seriously, what sort of comfort comes from believing all of that is litteraly true? Or any of that.

And what's maybe most important: I don't have to postpone judgement.
I don't have to wait until the Second Coming to find out wether or not a let a virtuous life.
All I have to do is critcally question my own acts. If I do good unto others, it's not because I hope to be rewarded in perpetuity after my physical demise. It's simply becasue that's how I choose to act, that's the way I choose to be in this one life. And if I'm acting wrongfully, I won't fear to face the Almighty - I'll fear to loose myself and those who are dear to me.

I really don't see the comfort you find in thinking that your life is some sort of big Idols-preselection in which God is the jury and you hope to be Susan Boyle but fear to be Bob Dylan. I actually even find that pretty childish.

You could at least try to be even-handed - either trivialize your efforts to live a good life, as you trivialize the history of religion, or take the history of religion as srriously as you take your self-evaluating ethics. Either one can be rrivialized, but either obe can be taken seriously. Lopsided treatment is basically empty-headed.

Oh, I think that I do trivialise my efforts to live a good life.
Luck has it that by this time tomorrow I might already be history - a car accident or something similar is all that is needed.
And even if I am lucky enough to grow old and lead a virtuous life, not much will remain of it after the inevitable does come to pass. I'll never have any childeren, both my sister and my brother are becoming more and more independent humans as we all age, ..., I don't think that I have many illusions regarding the size of the "impact" my ego will have on the course of history.
It's quite likely that 50 years after my death, the number of people who will ever have heard of me will be considerably less than 50.

Or did you mean something else all together?

Now let's see you non-trivialize religion, in equal measure.

The least accurate of all forms of Judgement is Self Judgement.-Abigail Dapple

And who exactly is Abigail Dappple?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQ3Xj49XPE&feature=related

Lucky's speech from Waiting For Godot- Samuel Beckett.

"Science is a form of religion. The religious archetype of deliverance is very much embedded in the birth of science, as the collective psyche of humanity is essentially seeking to express its desire for deliverance through knowledge gained from newly created technologies previously unavailable.

Due to God's inherently ironic sense of humor, it is just as likely that the same ratio of sages to practitioners can be found in both methods of achieving deliverance; science seeks to be delivered by ever novel technologies which fuel inevitable progress toward a promise land of plenty, and on the other hand religion seeks to be delivered by petitioning the collective psyche to reveal itself in history(via incarnation and judgment) to direct us toward heaven via divine providence. This is a law of divine providence; that is, those who seek, regardless of method, will come to find the same truth. That is what we have learned with our scientific materialism. We have ultimately come to the same conclusion that our religions have already come to; that which is, we inhabit an ineffably connected universe whose laws* are eternally absolute and are seemingly out of our control. The final assumption of control is only transcended by a precious few individuals throughout history and these people are our greatest scientists and mystics. Einstein was a genius who understood that we were all connected and he expounded it through his theories such as relativity. Arguably, Christ had the same understanding and preached his own subjective deliverance as love.

*To the devout religious these laws are absolutes such as good, evil, and love; to the scientist these laws are gravitation, relativity, entropy etc. or whatnot"- Roy Ouroboros....Over

Empiricism has some value as a problem solving tool. Religion is a form of cultural expression. They are different categories.

Culture is a form of religious expression. Empiricism makes nice modes. People who make categories make categories. Over

God invented all of those words and he always knew that you would post them, Here, Now. Over

God is sleeping now. That is what Krishna just reported, anyhow.