Peter Bowden made a reference to there being no organised charity conducted by atheists. Atheists are as likely to privately donate to worthy causes as anyone else. And, the environmental movement which saw all forms of life as having a right to exist for its own sake was launched mainly by atheists. Even now decades later the churches have only started to jump on the green wagon.

The thrust of Peter Bowden’s argument is that we need to have meaning in our lives. In other words fantasize about a meaning which is not there. Life has meaning when you stop focusing on yourself and help other humans [especially your own children] or dependent animals or even a struggling plant to better survive. No need for myths to feel good about your existence.

"Hitchens issues a challenge: “Name me an ethical statement made, or an action performed, by a believer that could not been made or performed by a non-believer”. His challenge, of course, is nonsense."
No, actually, your justification is nonsense, with the valid point made by the comment before mine...

So atheists 'destroy mankind's history, replacing it with empty nothing'? I guess the abolitionists faced the same argument in abolishing slavery. Aren't supernatural beliefs just intellectual slavery? What freedom is it to know that our future is in our own hands, it's all up to us. What a humbling, overwhelming thought - perhaps some are too scared to handle this basic truth, but like a child forced to leave home to grow into an adult, it has to happen.

Scared or not, humanity has no choice but to stand on its own two feet. No supernatural being will save us from the great problems that face us. If we don't save ourselves, who will? Indeed, when a hundred million Americans believe that 'the endtimes are coming' it is quite easy to understand how they have a president that has done more to contribute to the 'endtimes' than probably anyone in history. He stokes the fires of global warming and the clash of civilisations without a second thought because this is his god-given destiny!

And what have the religious institutions been doing? It took the Pope longer than this US President to acknowledge global warming! Quite an achievement!

Thanks, Peter, for a very thought provoking article. The greatest problems of the human race are the need of individuals to convince others that their view of the world is the only authentic view, and their quest to get others to live according to their own doctrine, or lack of same. Bigotry and intolerance of the beliefs, values and behaviours of others is the start of much of the unnecessary and destructive conflict in our world, be they demonstrated by fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims or atheists.

I've read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and also (and very importantly) Sam Harris, and I have to say that I seem to have read different books to those read by this author.

As I say elsewhere (see http://smartmouthedmeddler.blogspot.com/2008/01/against-dogma-is-new-atheism-really-new.html), the primary target of the new atheism is not religion as such, but dogma - the belief that it is acceptable (even virtuous) to believe things on no or bad evidence.

Dawkins, Dennett and (particularly) Harris all indicate that they have little or no problem with deism, or Spinozaian pantheism or what Dawkins calls "Einsteinien religion"; and at least Harris, Dennett and Hitchens have indicated that they wouldn't necessarily want to see the synagogues, churches and mosques emptied, though they would want to see them abandon their metaphysical waffle.

As for the search for meaning being possible without belief in God, that is exactly the point being made by Sam Harris in the final chapter of his book, The End of Faith.

It really would be nice if critics of the "new atheists" would bother to actually read the books. That shouldn't be too much to ask, should it?

Re posts by healthwatcher and Chade, I believe Peter Bowden's point is that there are few, if any, specifically atheist charities providing these services (as opposed to secular charities which may or may not be full of atheists) - something that is difficult to dispute.

I agree that Dawkins' book is unnecessarily vitriolic against religion (while agreeing with his fundamental point that religion is not necessary for a full and moral existence). There is definitely a need for writings arguing against the current tendency to overplay the religious, particularly when the result is to denigrate those of other religions or none, but Dawkins (and apparently the others who I haven't read)lose their power by being over the top.