Bushbasher:

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

So you’re admitting that it’s ok to have a little bit of faith, but you don’t think it’s good to have a lot of faith? But where do you draw the line?

Atheists all believe in miracles. They just don’t like to admit it.

[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.]

If tooth fairies could reveal themselves personally to people if given a chance, and if there was good historical evidence of fairy miracles like there is for Jesus Resurrection, then you could begin to entertain the possibility of them being on par.

[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.]

Hook, line and sinker. You fell for it. Have you considered WHY these things happen? It’s because people believe in God. If no one believed in God, then no one would murder in the name of God. But WHY do people believe in God? Why are there innumerable people of incredible intellect who do believe in God? Why are there so many very, very, very intelligent people who consider it rational to believe in God? There’s NO ONE in the same boat who believes in tooth fairies. Have you contemplated why that would be?

To suggest that all of these people are so deluded that they’d openly proclaim belief in something which is as silly as the tooth fairy means that either 1. You’re absurdly arrogant to make that claim, since your power of intellect is only moderate, and much less so than the intellectually gifted theists to whom I refer (I’ll assume...) or b. You haven’t fully thought through the reasons why intelligent theists may believe.

So, which is it?

Actually, Gates and Buffet are self-proclaimed agnostics, not atheists, with much influence from Christian principles.

In fact, if you look at the history of the Gates Foundation, you'll find it being created due to the influence of Melinda Gates' (nee French) mother, who died of cancer and passed on a bible verse to her daughter. The death of the mother and the bible verse are given as pivotal in the creation of the foundation.

But hey...never let reality get in the way of good propaganda.

I find it amusing that Atheists, who can't see what 90% of the world see (higher if you view all of history), think the burden of proof is on the super-majority. Ah well...what can you expect from people who believe they have mutated monkey brains that are not selected for apprehending truth.

Actually, the difference between and Atheism and Agnosticism is that Atheism deals with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge. So all Atheists are also Agnostics - as no one can know if a God of any sort actually exists - and most Agnostics are Atheists since they don’t believe in any particular God.

But hey...never let reality get in the way of good propaganda.

I find it amusing that Theists, who can't see that it doesn’t matter how many people believe something, only why they believe it, think the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe in unproven mythological beliefs that others have made the conscious choice themselves to adopt. Ah well...what can you expect from people who think that those who accept evolution believe we have mutated monkey’s brains.

The most disappointing aspect of the article (and much of this discussion) is the belligerent, adversarial stance.

Obviously, both believers and non-believers value the freedom to determine the guiding principles by which they live their lives. Clearly both devote considerable reflection and energy to deciding if these principles will follow a religious, or a non-religious pathway. Demonstrably, both believers and non-believers acknowledge an obligation to contribute back to societies that have nurtured them, and to support other less privileged societies. Indisputably, every day we pass on the street hundreds of upstanding, moral fellow citizens, some believers, some not.

The common discourse in which one side tries to demonstrate the stupid/superstitious/evil/delusional nature of the other side is becoming very tiresome. An acknowledgement that those who base their lives on other principles are nonetheless worthy human beings would help to put some generosity of spirit back into this debate.

Before anyone reading this thinks that these words only apply to one side or other, let me emphasise that in my view the individuals trying to polarise our views are on both sides. We don’t live in a binary world, and straw-man dichotomies like believer vs non-believer are an insult to our very human efforts to find truth and structure in the world.

The Global Atheist Convention notwithstanding, atheism is not an organised religion or 'faith'. Without an organisation that everyone can agree to belong to, it is not feasible to have an 'atheist' charity set up by that non-existent organisation. The best we can do is have the various non-religious charities that the article agrees exist.

And it is no use knocking atheism because it may or may not add value to humanity. If God does not exist, the point that athesim is all about, then there is no point in pretending that he does, just to improve society. A circular argument was used in comparing Christ to your average atheist - because that argument implicitly asks me to believe that Jesus did all the things the gospels say he did. I say he did not.

AJP... do you think Grey would have looked at Nazi Germany, noticed all the weight of the pro-Hitler believers in fascism (and in Italy and the UK, France the US and onwards) and decided that it was, therefore, a GOOD THING?

Because a lot of people must have quite genuinely believed in it.

After all, the trains were improved, and the road system, in a very efficient copying of the old Roman style, is still with us today.

And of course, the same question can apply to all sorts of similar excursions of depravity throughout history, but the German Nazis efforts are still very much 'public memory', so are useful as a single example.

The usual theist response to mentioning Hilter and Co is that he was not a believer, but that is not true at all. And Germany was certainly not an 'atheist' nation then.

Of course, it's probably better all round to look to 'human nature' than the presence or absence of 'belief' in that example, as with all other examples of great works or massive human failings, given that there is no sure-fire promise that simply being a 'believer' of any variety brings with it any guarantee of good moral behaviour...nor being a 'non-believer' either.

As for the inspiration of the bible verse being 'proof' of something, I am not so sure that one has to avoid some of the homespun wisdom the bible contains, just because it is in the bible.

It certainly provides some useful metaphors, sayings and quotes for use within our culture, that are readily understood by many, whether believers or not.

As my children moan about not being told something earlier (they generally have been but didn't listen/hear) I've been known to invoke the old 'Knock, and the door will open: ask, and you will receive'.

Irrespective (or 'irregardless' as Senator Joyce would say) of its source, that is sound advice, and more people should heed it in all sorts of situations.