@Pericles: "I wonder why they bother, when the chances of actually having an impact on their presumed targets, religious believers, are precisely nil, thanks to their arrogant and condescending approach. More likely, then, they are simply showing off to their mates that they, too, can be sneering and take ultra-cheap shots."

THIS is why we bother:

"People professing to have no religion have moved past Anglicans to become the second-largest grouping after Catholics in the 2011 Census."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/godless-overtake-anglicans-as-hinduism-doubles-20120621-20pt0.html#ixzz2IlnPmvBj

When you're freeing people's minds, guess what? Pushy, snarky, New Atheist tactics actually work.

If it is the sort of thing that makes you feel happy, David G, then by all means be my guest.

>>Ah, Pericluless, I have changed your pseudonym to something that better suits you and your meagre talents. I hope you don't mind.<<

It does seem just a tad childish, though. But each to his own, I guess.

>>Now, to your comment...sorry, I can find nothing in it that is worth discussing or debating. Sorry.<<

Please don't apologize. You know the maxim - when you don't have anything to say, it is far better to say nothing at all.

That might take a little practice, but feel free to make a start any time you like.

Well, how about that, Jon J

"People professing to have no religion have moved past Anglicans to become the second-largest grouping after Catholics in the 2011 Census."

But isn't there just the tiniest caveat to your triumphalism?

"The total Christian population is 13.2 million, or 61 per cent"

>>Pushy, snarky, New Atheist tactics actually work.<<

Of course, I forgot. New Atheism is the entire driving force behind the slow-but-inexorable move away from organized religion. Not better education and freer communications, as I had - wildly - imagined.

Congratulations

The belief that this ordered world came from a big bang is idiotic and totally irrational. Kindergarden observance confirms that. The evidence that the author seems to prat on about for evolution is still yet to be produced. People simply choose not to believe their Maker because they are filled with pride and are completely blind to their own adamic natures. The author uses the words 'We now know' To me it shows he knows very little. Creation is very observable unlike the fantasy of evolution.

We should not confuse the practice of religion with the practice of faith. Any form of institution, organization of humans, irrespective of their intention, is susceptible to corruption. But faith, on the other hand, is personal, and is beyond any judgement of others.

We also should not confuse the abuse of religion with the practice of faith. Any persuasion of religious nature, even atheism, is susceptible to abuse. Yes, I know, not all atheists are bad guys, but there are a few of them do give the bad name to atheism, namely, Chairman Mao, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, just to name a few. The same can be said about any religious organisation. So what is the point in taking cheap shot at anyone?

I have my faith, a faith given by God. It may seem ridiculous and insane to you; at the same time, I find atheism dishonest. But who am I to judge atheists? by the same token, who are you to judge my faith? Only when someone acts out of his faith and harms someone else, the law steps in to seek justice, and then it is an issue of action, not faith, not even religion, unless it incites unlawful behaviours.

People often take examples such as pedophile priests as evidence against religion in general. It is too simplistic and sometimes downright misleading. Those priests are criminals, not the representative of any religion.

I know not what kind of person the author is; however, I am afraid his article does not serve him favourably. All the ridicule he mustered against Christianity are age old stories with the sole aim of discrediting the faith, without any sincerity of learning and understanding, which make them little value for debate or response.

(a) "We should not confuse the practice of religion with the practice of faith." But the major religions use these terms interchangeably. Catholics refer to people who desert the Catholic religion as having lost the faith and religious schools call themselves "faith-based". So who is confused?

(b) "I find atheism dishonest. But who am I to judge atheists?" You just did.

(c) "I know not what kind of person the author is; however, I am afraid his article does not serve him favourably." Correct. You, don't know what kind of person I am. Let me help. I am the kind of person who understands that anybody who presses incredible views on others bears the responsibility of proving them. Christians begin by asserting that there is a God who requires certain behaviours of us if we are to avoid certain unspeakable punishments. Non-believers say, "Hang on. Until you prove your basic assumption, the rest of what you say has no force. And remember, it's you who must prove your assumption. I don't have to prove any unlikely assertions because I did not make any. I certainly don't have to prove that you are wrong. But I do have the right, maybe even the responsibility, to point out flaws in your assumption, especially when you go the extra step of trying to force others to accept your own unproven beliefs."

(d) " … who are you to judge my faith?". Nobody is judging your faith, just your logic. You have responded by ignoring my challenge to the logic of your belief and, instead, attacking me for the kind of person I am. It would help if you, and Pericles, played the ball rather than the man.