In all seriousness, I understand why people believe in God. The scientific method is an excellent tool for learning about the physical universe, but it's just a tool, not a worldview in and of itself. It does not and cannot truly answer some of the big philosophical questions, e.g., "Why is there something rather than nothing?" While I'm not the most religious person in the world (I tend towards a deistic belief system, but that's neither here nor there), I don't think that methodoligical naturalism (the assumption that physical phenomena have natural causes, which is essential for the scientific method) necessarily implies metaphysical naturalism (the belief that only natural things exists, essentially "hard" atheism, which IMO is an inherently nihilistic and existentially repugnant belief). Many people do make that leap, including the majority of scientists, but that does not make science inherently atheistic, any more than plumbing or electrical engineering are atheistic (when was the last time you assumed that the cause of a clogged sink was something supernatural?). There are still many scientists who believe in God who also accept for the evidence for a heliocentric solar system, the germ theory of disease, the Big Bang, evolution, and so on (and as I've mentioned in this thread a Christian scientist was the first to propose the BBT). Saying that we have to choose between science and faith (something that relgious conservatives/fundamentalists and militant atheists both believe) is a false dichotomy.

Believing in God does not mean that we should stop using our faculties of sense and reason to discern various facts about the natural world and how it works, no more than using scientific reasoning to explain natural phenomena implies that we should reject belief in a God. Believing in God also doesn't entail that we treat our holy book like a science text. Doing so turns God into a "God of the Gaps," and science can and has filled in gap after gap. But where does that leave God? If we need evidence for God, where does that leave faith? Creationism (which I'm defining here is young-Earth creationism and other science-rejecting beliefs) is damaging to religion because it not only treats God as a God of the Gaps, but also because it is quite plainly false. It drives people away from religion and gives atheists more ammo to use by reinforcing the notion that the faithful are ignorant fools stuck in the Middle Ages. It takes real courage and honesty to reevaluate one's worldview in the face of new evidence. If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old yet every shred of evidences says it's six whole orders of magnitude older than that, then your belief is wrong. If you believe in the infalliability of the free market, yet certain businesses are doing things or making products that have clear negative externalities yet they do nothing to correct for this, then your belief is wrong. That doesn't mean you have to completely discard all of your beliefs, only the parts that are wrong. In other words, accepting the evidence for evolution doesn't mean you have to stop being a Christian, nor does accepting the evidence for global warming mean you have to stop being a conservative or a supporter of a market economy. Fortunately, most mainline denominations have reconciled their beliefs with science. If only the remaining holdouts would follow suit.

This is your fact:

And the conclusion I draw from that is that it is ridiculous.

This is your fact:

And the conclusion I draw from that is that it is ridiculous.

Wrong.

It's the belief that a God in the flesh can make you live forever if you telepathically accept him as your savior and change your ways through him.

Better than the logic that 0 + 0 = 1.

Wrong.

It's the belief that a God in the flesh can make you live forever if you telepathically accept him as your savior and change your ways through him.

Better than the logic that 0 + 0 = 1.

This is your fact:

And the conclusion I draw from that is that it is ridiculous.

Yup. nothing more logical than the tainted sin that is shellfish.

I'm not getting involved, but you're missing his point. 

People who believe in God do so, and thus Evolution and The Big Bang (which, I'll be honest, I thought were pretty much unanimously accepted) are unusual concepts which are tough to believe.

Similarly people who deny God's exsistance see religion as unusual concepts which are tough to believe.

I'm not going to say which one is right, but the constant yo-yoing like this is (and as it will continue no doubt) will get us nowhere, because it's a clash of beliefs.