I believe that a god exists.
I believe that that god is an arrogant ignorant brute who I should oppose due to philosophical differences...
I believe that my beliefs should not be trusted.
I can prove, on a purely faith-based argument(pretending that there is such a thing, I can't see it getting much beyond just yelling at each other until someone gives in and kills the other...) that faith is insufficient.
I believe that reason can be trusted, again, it is only a belief, and therefore is flawed, and reason is not always applied perfectly, but I maintain that of the available options it is the most accurate.
Reason and science are not the same thing. Science is a very specific method for determining a set of reliable assumptions. Reason is a far more general term and is not entirely compatible, as science requires using the scientific method even if better methods appear to exist...
Reason tells me that it is foolish to assume that god exists.
Faith tells me that it is foolish to assume that god exists.
The dark room cartoon seems flawed because it seems to assume that religion was aware that it was wrong.
The green dinosaur seems to be opposing science. But "Couldn't they all be describing the same shared desire for an understanding of what's bigger than ourselves?"
Aaaaaaa, no, no they couldn't, they are predominantly based around the idea that they are devoted to a specific entity. Referring to that entity as a desire is blasphemy, in religious societies you probably would have been burned at the stake for saying that, and, unlike most people, it would probably be justified(according to the relevant laws, which may not, themselves, be justified)...
Religion's monopoly on the truth is supported only by those who believe that god is infallible. Science's monopoly on the truth is supported by its continued success, which can be appreciated by everyone who is supported by it, which is almost everyone... Also, science accepts that it may be wrong, obviously people forget that when they are arguing, but still, the issue isn't with science itself...
Calling people stupid for their religion is discrimination.
You're the one who needs to look up what the word discrimination means. Go ahead, and then post it here and apologize for talking about things you have no knowledge of.
That is only one example I pulled out, and it is indeed discrimination. You are saying that people who are religious can't be smart, which is simply not true. You are also dismissing and insulting their other opinions simply because they have a religion.
Don't even think about trying to say segregation isn't discrimination.
Segregation of infectious people is discrimination, discrimination can be supported by the community, although usually not by those who are segregated. You can say that people capable of spreading infectious diseases are a threat to the community, and so it is justified. I could argue that religion poses a threat to the community. People HAVE said that racially identifiable people are a threat to the community, and been publicly applauded for it. In the future people might consider quarantine barbaric...
It is true, that intelligent people can be religious. But this is not about intelligent people, it is about stupid people, or, more specifically, people who make stupid decisions. Saying that something you support can, by definition, not be supported by anything other than your own support seems stupid to me. I can define wisdom as making the decision that is best supported by the available information, an act that knowingly abandons wisdom is about as close to a definition of stupidity as I am likely to find. Just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they aren't stupid...
Being wrong IS a threat to the community, if someone hears about a disease nearby, they think, "I need to get my family away from here" because 'here' is dangerous. So they pack their whole family into a car and drive away...
Eventually blind faith will betray, it betrays on everything other than religion, why would religion be sacred?