Other people have already mentioned this review of Hitchens’ “god is not Great” by Richard Dawkins, so merely telling you about it is fairly useless. However, I just have to share this bit with anyone who didn’t read the full article:
The onus is not on the atheist to demonstrate the non-existence of the invisible unicorn in the room, and we cannot be accused of undue confidence in our disbelief. The devout churchgoer recites the Nicene Creed weekly, enumerating a detailed and precise list of things he positively believes, with no more evidence than supports the unicorn. Now that’s overconfidence. By contrast, the atheist says the humble thing: of all the millions of possible entities that one might imagine, I believe only in those for which there is evidence – trombones, pelicans and electrons, say, but not unicorns or leprechauns, not Thor with his hammer, not Ganesh the elephant god, not the Holy Ghost.
Lovely. 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
…what happened to the title?
Oops. Let me edit it…
I love Richard Dawkins’ way with words. He has the ability to make any argument that doesn’t align with his own opinions sound ridiculous. Or maybe the other arguments are just ridiculous…
Once again we are back to the topic of evidence.
Some look at creation and see evidence, others do not. Neither can prove the other wrong. His assertion that there is no more evidence for God than for unicorns negates this fundamental disagreement in what evidence is. He is simply, and most likely unknowingly being so “intelligent” in his argument that he is being stupid.