I know this is an old one, but I just started Franz De Waal’s “Bonobo and the Atheist”. At the end of chapter 1 he asks a rhetorical questions.
Understanding the need for religion is the far superior goal to bashing it. The central issue of atheism, which is the non-existence of god, strikes me as monumentally uninteresting. What do we gain by getting in a tizzy about something no one can prove or disprove?-- Frans De Waal Then he quotes Botton
In 2012, Alain de Botton raised hackels by opening his book, Religion for Atheists, with the line, “The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true – in terms of being handed down from heaven to the sound of trumpets and supernaturally governed by prophets and celestial beings." Yet for some, this remains the only issue they can talk about.Botton seems to be going right for Dawkins jugular, as he often brings up truth in debates. I think both of these guys miss the point. It's not important to debate the reality of the supernatural, but it's very important to understanding the meaning of the word and to teach that it can't be proven and why it can't. It is not "the only issue they can talk about", the point of bringing it up is to talk about the real issue of what science is and how we determine truth.