LOL that is quite funny but there is no real distinction between science and religion. It's FINE to engage in the abstract. Some people call it "God" while others call it the "electron cloud." The inspiration and dumb luck which produces most of our scientific hypotheses is not itself "scientific" or "rational" but "illogical," "abstract," and largely due to all of our dumb friends saying stupid shit, perhaps being poets, that we happen to include in our mental calculations. But reasoning that God is illogical because you have an illogical feeling is just the same kind of justification a religious person gives when they say God is logical based on their illogical feelings (that they can't put into words after you demand they stop with the rhetoric; "God is love"). So I ask you to look at the argument from preference of living style again: you simply don't believe in God because you weren't indoctrinated by religious parents. Indoctrination is not itself bad; it's neutral. Our parents have to tell us something; and that is the impetus for our preferences of living style.
One day you'll meet an overtly religious person who is good and fun to be around, and you'll say, "No, I'm an atheist; I don't have the talent to believe like you." Which just means you weren't given the right ingredients from your childhood upbringing and schooling to let you see where that person is coming from. Why? Because you'll want to respect that person's beliefs. You won't make bad-mouthing childish comments like Dawkins, trivializing something which is so dear to your friend. (How can you hold this person accountable for the Crusades? This person wouldn't hold you accountable for Stalin. etc etc) And you'll say "talent," just to be nice at first, but then you'll realize that the way you comfort yourself is just as illogical as their religious comforting. That you decide to whack off to scientific literature is not itself scientific; the religious person is just giving their arbitrary source of comfort a name: God.
