In an earlier discussion I claimed that believing in God’s existence, without compelling natural evidence, is the same sort of thing as believing in Russell’s outer-space teapot or the flying spaghetti monster. Not so, according to this interesting blog discussion.
USUPhilosophy 
Here’s another post by William Vallicella on the same topic. There points are very similar, but I thought it worth the read:
http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1169851433.shtml
LikeLike