I saw this graphic a few days ago on http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/06/why-i-am-atheist.html and felt compelled to just mention a few things because I've heard this type of argument in one way or another for quite some time now by prominent figures in the New Atheist Movement (just never this concise and direct!).
I'm focusing mainly on the comment, "If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence."
Now, lots could obviously be said and this is of course the subject of much debate. However, I want to just define a few terms very roughly and say what I think is missing in much contemporary debate.
Religion is a very loose term. How we often define "religion" today in popular Western media (at least) wouldn't even be recognizable to those who launched a fresh new “movement” or “lifestyle” in first century Jerusalem because they believed a man named Jesus from Nazareth was the promised Jewish Messiah who became the world’s Lord when he lived, died, and rose from the dead, a.k.a. Christianity (look at my posts on the Book of Acts, among others, to see why!). Let’s be clear on that, first.
