How's this for two prime examples of the value of religion, taken from the Australian Prayer Network newsletter today.

Of Islamic followers in the UK:
"Choudary says his group is merely following core Islamic teachings and that Islam is much more than a religion."This particular belief is more than just a religion," he declared. "It is not just a spiritual belief. It is, in fact, an ideology which you believe in and you struggle for and you are willing even to die for, because you believe in that: That is your whole life." Choudary seems to relish being called Great Britain's "most hated man" and pledges to continue his rallies calling for the overthrow of the British system.

Of the Lurv of God in Haiti, having killed all the sinners with His earthquake:

Where were all the people?
They were in churches and makeshift meeting sites. Every church had services, most overflowing into the streets. Services were held outside the ruins of Churches flattened by the earthquake and in homeless camps. Everywhere the nation was gathered to worship and pray. There were no signs of any voodoo, Islamic, or Buddhist services. One Pastor, Pastor Ignace, asked this question: "Can people still say that Haiti is a voodoo country? Twenty years ago I started praying for the Gospel to change the Haitian culture and I am now seeing God do that work."

Amazing what fear, ignorance and human insecurity do to people's thinking

As an atheist I spend much of my celebrating the fact that I disbelieve in Christ, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, the Old Ones among many others. In fact I spend so much time thinking about the gods I don't believe in, I can hardly do anything else.
I do note two blaspheming heretics are mentioned that betrayed the Bible, God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Two men whose actions, while perhaps in accordance with their deluded consciences helped overturn a millenia of Biblical and religious traditions.
Of course, I'm talking about W Wilberforce and M L King. Slavery and aparthied, they help destroy were approved and even required by Christian tradition, the word of the one true living God as shown in the Inerrant King James Version and almost all other Bible thumpers then and before and many now.
I do respect many Christians. Almost all are members of the Brethren, Quakers or Anabaptist's. They could avoid trial, even though many are incredibly wealthy, but heretics of any other cult, to avoid being burnt at the stake would have to prove they follow Christ's teaching.

"impossible to conclusively prove there is no God, just as atheists assert that no one can prove there is one."

Hmmm. It's also impossible to conclusively prove that there is no magic teapot circling the dark side of the moon, and to prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn.

The fact that the existence of God cannot be conclusively proven does not mean that the existence of God and the non-existence of God are equally probable or plausible.

Your point about theists having a much better track record of welfare agencies is well taken. On the other hand, atheists have their own pretty good track record by way, for example, of scientific endeavours that have increased productivity, food production, and welfare in other such material ways

Just joining the chorus of those saying this is a very stupid article.

For the record, Mr Forster, atheism simply means the absence of theism. To be an atheist does not require belief in disproof of god. Your notion that atheism is a faith is wrong, or at least, it uses such a strawman version of strong atheism that it can have little bearing on the history of non-belief or indeed the current resurgence in atheism. Very few atheists claim to have proof in God's non-existence because that is impossible. What most thoughtful atheists do is they make arguments based on an epistemic threshold or probability to the exclusion of unseen forces.

An atheist, therefore, adopts a default position of evidence-based epistemology. He or she is simply applying the exact same scepticism of any Christian who assuredly has a similar kind of default non-belief in invisible pink unicorns, tiny teapots orbiting earth, or a range of other dead deities such as Zeus or Thor.

Moverover, Mr Forster's arguments about atheist giving are no less pernicious. For a start, the consequences of belief aren't a valid basis for assessing its truth-value. So even if Christianity promoted charitable deeds more than atheism, that doesn't help rescue Christianity if it is ontologically unsound.

Second, on the facts, it's not clear you have made any real effort at evaluating the proposition, beyond a superficial survey. How many charitable trusts have a purely secular basis in education, health? There are hundreds in Australia alone and thus many candidates for non-religious charity. But you don't consider them. How many atheists give regularly through workplace giving, or private donations? I don't know, but I suspect its a lot. The author provides no sense that he has even entertained these basic questions. Hence I question the lack of research and good faith that has gone into this piece.

Seems like another tabloid-esque article to woo the simpletons when other topics like hooning teenagers and shonky Lebanese builders have run their course with audiences.

Anyway- The reason we get "Christian charities" is most likely because each Christian sect is a formal organization (or club!) and thus there is something for them to represent as a charity. I'd imagine there are no "atheist charities" because there are no "atheist churches" to represent, and an atheist would see no reason to set themselves apart as such from a faith charity and thus is simply a non-denominational charity.

The only situation would be a charity that donates condoms would likely be against the principals of most faith groups and thus would warrant setting themselves apart for.

Nothing to see here, move along.

I agree that this article is a poor exposition of the standard theist attempt to reduce a lack of belief in god/s to the intellectual straitjacket of constituting a 'faith'. However, I expect that we'll see cleverer versions in response to events like the recent atheist convention in Melbourne.

While at one level I think that a convention of atheists of various decriptions, exchanging ideas and engaging in rational bonhomie sounds like a fine idea, at another I think that they set themselves up for this kind of disingenuous attack from threatened theists.

However, maybe that's just what they want :)