All it takes is one piece of solid scientific proof of a god, then boom no more atheists. It's that easy. So far, there has been none.
I agree that many atheists are just on a bandwagon of belief because really thinking about things yourself is just too much work. However, many of us do read, do think. Many of us simply seek truth. Science helps with this. Science doesn't allow for poorly-defined premises or slippery words that need to be interpreted in a spiritual context (whatever that means). If you are unable to pinpoint the facts, dogma hides beneath an ever-shifting smokescreen which makes it impossible for the truly honest truth seeker to decipher.
Harris favours a strict and literal interpretation of religious scripture because it's easier for him to dismiss it as Iron Age superstition.
He doesn't do this to make it easier to dismiss. He's using the scientific laser focus necessary for burning things closer to the bone of truth. To explain something as 'God's being mysterious' doesn't explain anything. Nobody's nearer the truth. It encourages ignorance. Just like when the child asks, 'How are babies made?' Either to avoid the embarrassing question, or because the adult doesn't know the answer, they're told 'the stork brought it'.
@anjkara - no Christian would ever expect you to have solid scientific proof of God - there is a good reason for it - Free Will.
Humankind has Free Will from the beginning.
If what you demand was produced you lose your free will, how could you not believe?
No Christian would ever want that to occur outside of when it is meant to, because the only time that occurs is at a point of ending, either in meeting God due to death or meeting God due to the end of the World.
But I would also suggest that no scientist would expect you to have solid scientific proof of Love.
You are the one seeking scientific proof - let us look at Love, which is described as an attribute of God.
Give me one scientific paper giving something simple, such as the weight of Love (mass) or the Speed of a Love in a look (you can use meters per second or feet) - once you can do that then lets look at God.
The point being that you don't expect to make a cake using concrete and a jackhammer.
It is extremely foolish to expect to look at a philosophical constuct using science which is immersed in the material - the reason that science is the daughter of philosophy is because to look at this you need to use the highest tools we have, not lower ones, such as science