Peter, if the responses to your articles are predictable, that's because the articles always say exactly the same things. Provide some supporting evidence, and we can have fun refuting it. But if all you're going to do is make the same dreary unsupported assertions over and over and over and over again, what can you expect but the same responses? As a great man said: 'What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'.

Yes Suse and point taken.
However, to believe in one thing and use that to refuse to believe in evidence based belief, like say, climate change is real, and even now, if we act in a timely manner, we could actually do something about it!
And quite massively improve our economic performance whilst doing so.
Atheism seems also to go hand in hand with an absolute belief in (faith based absolutism) evolutionism.
If we believe this theory, then we have to also believe in magic, given there would be a greater chance of a whirlwind whipping through a junk yard, (pure chance) and resulting in a fully assembled flyable, 747!
And this evolution absolutism persists, in spite of the fact no nitrogenous coke deposits, that would prove we climbed out of some primordial slime, are yet to be discovered; or indeed, that some single cell organisms, have refused to get on board with this faith based belief system, and remain stubbornly (non-evolved) single cell organisms.
I prefer to remain an agnostic, given that just doesn't require me to announce an atheist's disbelief; perhaps and in my experience, with almost the same evangelistic fervor of other fundamentalists.
Perhaps I could have used the term fundamentalism, as opposed to atheism, to be more accurate?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

To take up another point; clearly this person known as JC, never actually penned anything runner!
And for all we know, was like later foundational, so called religious leaders or founders, entirely illiterate; as were his (stone tablet reading) peers!?
And such account as attributed to him or her is absolute hearsay of hearsay, of hearsay, and so on?
And allegedly, were written 50-100 years after the event, and by writers who patently plagiarized and routinely embellished the work of others!
None of which are eye witness accounts!
I'd imagine any modern day investigative reporter, would be given Jail time, for promulgating this, he said, that he said, that she said material, and purporting it to be both true and factual!
Little wonder it is often presented as the greatest story ever told!
And in any modern day interpretation, story is always a work of fiction at worst, and highly dramatized, if entirely unproven documentation at best!
Compare any compulsion related, (thou shall not) religion or absolutism, with the ring in a bull's nose!
The ring is placed there in order to control and lead the bull where the controlling entity would have him go!
Be it to the herd of cows for mating duties, the castration corral, the matador's sword or the abattoir.
The analogy is probably appropriate, given the theology includes, compulsory celibacy; and tolerates age related enforced retirement, if not outright elder abuse; and or, preaches the rightness of accumulating wealth; all of which invariably incorporates some exploitation of others, or slavery!
I mean, what else would you call wages lower than the actual cost of maintaining a kept slave; or for that matter, an entirely unpaid priest!
Rhrosty.

Yes Rhosty, I too have called myself agnostic rather than atheist, as no one has proved there isn't a God either!

As far as evolution goes, science has proved there has been some evolution of species, but not that we know how life on earth actually started.

Then again, no one has proved that any God gave us life on earth either.
I prefer to just sit on the fence until I can see proof!

I find this whole article depressing. Surely even the most devout believers must know that the stories in the New Testament were written 100 to 200 years after the death of Christ, and that He may not even have existed.

People sure are gullible! Years ago, when we were all ignorant, illiterate, superstitiously believing in witches and devils, perhaps one could be forgiven for following obvious charlatans like Joseph Smith, the Prophet Mohammad, or even Jesus; but today, surely one's brain must have some defect, most probably caused by deep indoctrination in one's formative years.

We can't disprove the existence of God, just as we can't disprove Bertrand Russell's flying teapot, Santa Clause, or the Flying Spaghetti monster. But we shouldn't have to. At least, belief in a God is an honest, if mistaken, position to have, but Agnosticism is a cowardly position to take. Does one really have to wait for science to prove that fairies don't exist?

Richard Dawkins once commented that he would not debate religion in a public forum, and aprt from this, neither will I.

Thank you George. I do not take Peter's articles here seriously. They seem to be generated out of a mass of prejudice and misunderstanding. The worrying thing is that they are so predictable. Same old line, same old tired arguments. I really wonder if he tries to engage with the reader at all! I think as soon as he sits down to write, something engages in his mind and out comes the usual irrational drivel.
Best wishes.
Pericles