Atheism and religion are just two competing forms of thought. One is anti-faith and the other pro-faith, simple as that. They are both valid in that they give different people the reassurance and protection they require in their life path.

The "mine's better than yours" polemic is rubbish, regardless of who's pushing it.

Rowan Forster for all his protestations of being agnostics spends an inordinate amount of time on christianity.

Thus it is not surprising when he shows about as much understanding of athiesm as a nun does of fast living.

Athiest don't try necessarily to join athiest only organisations, rather organisations for which religion is not a prerequisite. There are no belief based athiest organisations simply because they would be a contradiction in terms.

I don't care whether another person worships God, Allah, a variety of gods, or even the easter bunny, as long as they don't expect me to share their beliefs, or share their opinions which are belief based.

I try and steer my donations or volunteer work away from belief based organisations, but in the absence of a secular organisation I will support what's available such as Vinnie's or the local "soup kitchen".

While the churchs are quick to claim credit for their charities, they shy away from some of damage their faith has caused such as the abstinence based sex education that has helped American teens to record pregnancy levels, and helped boost HIV in Africa.

Rowan Forster

<<< I have yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism. >>>

That's quite correct.

Atheists go to counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists or other professionals for help when having problems or other difficulties in life. And these same professionals do not run around shouting "Hallelujah, I have cured another ill person!".

Another interesting fact is that atheists do not get possessed by demons either.

trav:

>the fact- an inescapable fact, actually- is that atheists do have faith.

in any way remotely like the way christians have faith in biblical twaddle? balderdash.

>> I always chuckle to myself at those who compare belief in God with belief in the tooth fairy.

and i chuckle at your smug chuckling, that you seem to regard virgins giving birth to gods as a superior belief to fairies purchasing teeth.

>> I haven't heard of a global Afairies convention, but if there is, let me know.

don't worry. once believers in tooth fairies start getting tax breaks, and start murdering in the name of their god, once it becomes effectively mandatory for politicians to declare their oneness with tooth gods, there'll most surely be a global afairies convention.

Grey
"Dawkins has faith that no-one can have warranted belief in God...so he is claiming not only that he hasn't found proof of God's existence, but also that no-one CAN find proof of God's existence..."

No he's not. Dawkins explicitly admits the logical possibility that God could exist. But, as he says, that doesn't mean the probabilities of God's existing, and not existing, are equal. On the evidence and reasons for and against, he finds that the probability that God exists is so astronomically (pardon the pun) small, as to be negligible.

I will undertake to conclusively prove there is no God to Rowan Forster's satisfaction, on the following conditions:

1. He sets out an empirical proposition which he believes can be disproved.

2. He explains the steps by which this proposition can be disproved to his satisfaction.

3. We apply those steps to the proposition 'God exists'.

If we use the mathematical sense of 'proof', then no, we can't prove God doesn't exist, but we can't mathematically prove that cows are mammals, or any other empirical proposition, either. But as far as empirical 'proof' goes, of the kind accepted in a court of law or a scientific laboratory, there is no doubt whatever that the non-existence of God is as well proven as the law of gravity or the guilt of Martin Bryant.

And in response to the ad hominem attacks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nontheists