You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.
Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.
I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.
Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.
And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:
The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
