There's a difference between not believing and rejecting, at least for me. I don't believe Diet Mountain Dew tastes good, but as I've never even had it I'm not going to reject the idea out of hand

The fourth pillar of Islam is Zakat, or communal charity.  Everyone gives a percentage of their wealth to a communal pool that can be used by anyone in need.  Decidedly un-hooey like.

I'm in a strange spot.  I certainly don't believe in the singular, masculine, consciousness as defined in virtually all monotheistic religions.  Nor do I believe that the universe expresses itself in a pantheon of fizziness as most pantheistic religions claim.  I certainly do not believe in any kind of afterlife, nor in any particular creation myth.  But I harbor no animosity to any believer of any kind.  I make no value judgment on their intellect, how they came to their faith, or how they express it.  Are a lot of believers dumb?  Fucking duh.  Who the fuck cares?  I share a lot of opinions with my non-believer friends, but I get very antsy when through their arguments they express their beliefs as an expression of virtue or intellectual gift.   

Because bottom line, it's the action that matters.  I don't give a crap what the nicest, strongest, most caring people I know do on Sundays or read in their off time, as long as they continue to live a virtous life based on deed.  Nor do I give a whit if some douchebag makes very cogent arguments that I personally agree with if he's still a douchebag (no one here, obviously).  Religion or non belief are merely expressions of our character, not the fount of it.  We cling to belief systems that fit our character.  If you were raised one way, you'll eventually land on what you were always meant to be someday (just like my Grandmother, raised atheist, became a baptist, and just like my father, raised baptist, became agnostic). 

For my part, people know that I'm a Soto sect Zen Buddhist.  That is not my religion, as Buddhism isn't one, nor does it try to be one.  It doesn't address creation myth nor afterlife.  But through it's study I've realized some hard truths.  None of us are special.  No one is unique.  Sure, if you look closely you see some differences, but if you zoom out, we are all (believer and non alike) silly humans doing silly human shit.  If I zoom in super tight on a 10'000 fps camera footage of rain, I could probably make out differences in each rain drop.  But I don't go "Wow, look at the millions of falling unique puddles," I say, "Huh...rain".

I would never say "I am humble," because the mere act of doing so is a giant face palm.  I would say that I strive for humilty. So approaching this argument of believers vs non, I will say, who the fuck am I to even give a crap about how people arrive at their beliefs.  It's one thing to recognize that yes, belevers by and large may in fact exercise less mental agility than non.  It's another thing to take pride in it though, and relish in the difference like it makes you special somehow.  Dorkman mentions preferring the Renaissance to the modern middle east.  I would submit that in the grand story of our species, both periods are tiny blips that again, don't matter to much.  Neither was ultimately the defining moments in our existence.  Religion and non-belief are nothing new, and the story of our species will not be determined by faith.  All we want to do is punch, fuck, eat, and sleep.  Our belief systems are built around those things.  And regardless of how much they actually do it, a hardcore believer wants to punch and or fuck as many things as I do.   So regardless of how much my ego tells me, at the end of the day, I'm not in any way significantly different from a believer.

I don't know if you're a true Scotsman, but that certainly is a hell of a straw man you're whacking at there.

The line, for me, is when their false beliefs start to impact my life. And when they do, if their actions are based on an absurd belief, I'm going to say so. And if someone else comes by and says "Hey, I'm not an asshole but I believe the same thing that asshole does that you say is wrong," I'll say "It's great that you're not an asshole, but he's wrong and so are you."

Lady with a knit sweater who thinks grey is red? Fine, whatever. Lady with a bully pulpit who thinks gays should be put to death because the Bible says so? Not fine. Lady who believes the Bible but doesn't have a problem with gays? That's cool of her, but it doesn't make the Bible truer, and isn't a good reason not to object to it when the other lady starts trying to pass laws.

I was just articulating why I prefer the habits of pleasantness and respectfulness over the habit of correcting-ness by giving contrasting examples. Plus philosophical stuff. I'm not saying all of those things apply to anyone in particular, much less that they're wrong because those are their opinions, so there's not much straw-man-whackery going on.

The only argument against anyone in particular, onto whom a straw outfit could be applied, was Dawkins. And there wasn't really any straw there, just whacking.

I love you guys.

Old Lady:  I was talking to Zeus the other day and he thinks youre a bad influence on me.

Mike:  That's interesting because I think he's a bad influence on you.

Old Lady: In what way?

Mike:  He makes you think the voices in your head are real.

I believe that one of the features of true Scotsmen is that they're not afraid to change their opinion in public, when presented with better evidence. I make this claim as a true Scotsman.