Yes, I was surprised at the attacks by Pell and Jensen over Easter. A time I would have thought of tolerance and goodwill. Christian colleagues have also voiced concerns at the unnecessary and counter-productive attacks.

The statements about atheists "hating God" is odd and particularly points to either disingenuity or ignorance about what it means to be an atheist. As the author writes, atheists simply believes there is no evidence for a God. How can you hate that which does not exist?

It is different from Agnostic. You cannot provide evidence that something does not exist (if it is not visible) - it is on the claimant to provide the evidence that it does exist.

I think the Church has misspoke on this issue and will probably regret it in terms of the potential for hatred and continued division it will create between theists and non-theists.

The comments have gone relatively unnoticed by the media, imagine the outrage if it was a Muslim cleric spouting the same dogma.

Hate speech does not mend it only further divides.

David – you say that atheism’s firm foundation is a desire for evidence, not belief.

But where is the evidence for how nothing became everything, i.e. before the big bang – “nothing”, after the big bang – “everything”?

Where is the evidence for how lifeless matter became living things?

Where is the evidence for how unconscious matter became conscious?

Where is the evidence for how non-intelligent matter became intelligent?

Where is the evidence for how totally determined physical matter attained the ability to be free agents?

There is no hard scientific evidence as to how any of these things actually happened. Certainly there is plenty of speculation but that does not equate to science. Atheists simply take it on faith that all these things happened randomly by themselves without any direction or rational input.

Theists may believe in miracles but undeniably so do atheists.

JP: << Atheists simply take it on faith that all these things happened randomly by themselves without any direction or rational input. >>

Sigh... no, that's not true. Some atheists might think that, while others might have different explanations. What we have in common is that we acknowledge that these events occurred, but because of insufficient evidence we reject the belief that god/s were responsible for them.

<< Theists may believe in miracles but undeniably so do atheists. >>

Rubbish, if you're talking about religious miracles. I'm an atheist and I deny that they exist.

I agree that some religious leaders have made ridiculous, offensive and even plain wrong statements. And I’m all for the equality, compassion and respect for other individuals that the writer seems to espouse.

However I suggest that David Swanton should be more self-critical. In his fourth paragraph he does many times exactly what, in his fifth paragraph, he condemns the Catholic bishop for doing – i.e. “incorrectly asserting that what is true of one person of a group is true of the whole group”.

In that fourth paragraph he tells us that all religions are perpetrators of mass murder while also spurning females, homosexuals and certain races. The evidence he offers in support of the claim is carefully selected from certain sub-sets of religion but is not true of many other sub-sets.

For example, females can be bishops (or the equivalent) in some churches, and the trend is strengthening. Many Christians do not even believe in “hell”, let alone believe that non-Christians are going there. A great many Christians are convinced that biblical exegesis actually supports, rather than forbids, equality of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Through history religious adherents have opposed wars and slaughter which others of their religion have supported.

For a number of reasons Archbishop Jensen and Cardinal Pell get a dominant slice of media time while not representing the views of the majority of the people in their churches. Beware of seizing on their particular sub-sets as examples of the much wider set. This mistake – or is it strategy? – is made by many people on both sides of the public atheism/science-vs.- religion/belief debate.

JP you have hit the nail on the head. I think it is the key difference. It is true the we really don't understand how life arose....

The Atheist say's let's investigate the mystery using science.

The Religious make up a story and then enforce belief in the story, often by killing people.

The theories you speak of, are a work in progress, a search for answers. Science will move forward but it has to have working ideas. Religions believe they have the answers already.

Runner personnel belief doesn't count as proof, even in your head, remember that one about lying.

Well said David, an informed article and a pleasure to read.
I do take issue with JP- your logic posits that if there is no explanation for something, it means this is evidence of God. It could mean scientists have not yet developed a testable theory for the data.
There are new theories developed and knowledge increases every day! Old theories are discarded if they dont fit in with current knowledge, and new discoveries increase our understanding.
In the Dark Ages, before scientific knowledge vastly increased out understanding of the earth an its place in the universe, God was used as an explanation for the unknown.
As we know a lot more now, what is unknown is a lot less! This makes God less significant if you attempt to place him in the unknown scientific data. God has no place in science, just as rationalism has no place in organised religion.
Go to church and find Him there!