Originally Posted by Miburo
Uh, yes? He's using it as an analogy to show how an illogical belief is harmless so long as it is not applied to the rest of the world. While it's true that one cannot disprove the existence of God (or pretty much anything else for that matter), that doesn't mean it's a bit more logical then believing 2+2=5.
Because it can be, and has been, shown that the belief in baseless claims is illogical. Just like it can be shown that the belief that 2+2=5 is illogical. They're both illogical. It's a fitting analogy.
There isn't a scale of logicalness or anything. Shit is either logical or it isn't.
All claims are logical, but some are more logical than others. : D
(Here's to hoping you've read Animal Farm, or else I'm going to come off as a total twat.)
Also, that analogy isn't completely fitting, as 2+2=5 can be disproven (I don't want to go into how
it is disproven, because honestly that's something I want to know as well; we'd have to delve into the veracity of supposed facts and truth and that's another ballpark I cbf entering. Let's just say it's self-evident) but a belief in a deity, no matter how illogical, cannot be absolutely denied. Something can be illogical as well as true. >_<
I can see how that analogy may be adequate in accordance to a strong atheist's perception.