dan, you may not be able to prove the existence of the noonday sun, but if you don't put on a hat whilst trying, that big hot yellow thing up there is likely to give you cancer. maybe noel coward should have sung about mad dogs and englishmen AND religious sophists?

i liked your posts above, but please don't now go do the silly 1st year philosophy skeptic thing. the existence of the sun is just a trifle more obvious than the existence of a christian god, biblical claims notwithstanding.

Christian or not, apologist or not, this guy has less than nothing to say.

Whoever is paying him to think is being horribly short-changed. What, for example, is worth paying for in this sequence?

"From where does Dawkins derive this faith in human freedom? Not from science. It comes from Christianity, which has always held that humans are different from all other animals in possessing free will."

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Christianity has always held this to be true, therefore anyone who agrees must "derive it from Christianity."

What arrogance!

It has been a common theme on this Forum that Christianity is the only vessel that can contain virtue, and this is just another attempt to occupy the high moral ground to the exclusion of others.

The man's a charlatan, pure and simple, and anyone buying his argument that atheism has some kind of evangelical force is simply paying the academic prostitute for some temporary mental satisfaction.

Richard Dawkins, the envoy intellect for many atheists, appears to have a problem only with the representation religion gives us (i.e. its extreme in your face fundamentalistic form) “If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible…” - R.D.

Dan S was able to provide some nuance and illustrate not all is a polarized black and white, which is after all a fundamentalist perspective. Bushbasher offered a subjective criticism when using as an analogy, 'proof' of the sun’s existence as akin to God’s. We have now, to a certain degree, empirically quantified the once mythically held hydrogen mass – source of light and life. Modern myth is a little more subtle – however, despite its sophistry it remains essentially the same as held by the ancients.

Can an atheist still hold spiritual beliefs? Do atheists have any room left for an interest in the paranormal? I loved the story in Esquire mag a while back about the surgeon who has erected a sheet over the operating table because he is tired of his patients relating their 'out of body' experiences and describing his actions and words spoken whilst they are anaesthetised.

I am constantly amazed at the vitriol of the anti's and the level of misinformation that fuels some of their claims- in this one thread I've read 'empty myths, meaningless gibberish, nasty, obtuse, detestable, ludicrous, loony etc'.I've also learned that Stalin and Pol Pot were relatively good guys, and that the Crusades were all about getting the atheists. Sheeesh! As intemperate as an religious fundamentalist.

Nor do I have time for the Christians on this thread. Boaz's moral boomerang will get him too.

Christianity has perverted the search for meaning and understanding of life. The concept of 'spirit' is just that to them, a concept without any day to day significance. If understanding of life is conditional on 'belief' in JC and their idea of the supreme being, then heaven help us all.

It is possible to regard self as just that; self/spirit/soul, without being caught up in dogma. Just ask the Buddhists, Hindus or New Agers.

As someone with a foot in both camps on this subject, I say everyone lighten up and don't take it so seriously. When science has finished splitting the atom etc and finds there is nothing there after all between 2 non existent 'points', then maybe the concept of the soul will come back into vogue.

(It is pretty obvious that this article is an abridged version of something that may have hung together much better in longer form.)

holy cow. reida, the sun example was dan's, and his example was dumb. you say my criticism was subjective? what does that even mean? what would you regard as objective criticism?

look, i liked dan's posts (though pericles nailed john gray perfectly). but dan's example was was plain silly. healthy doubt is fine. the arrogance of scientists who think they know everything can be really annoying. but equating the scientific method with myth-making is absurd.

The author is struggling to bring together 'atheist'/'god the creative'... I think hindu's struggled longest to answer...and they concluded...'one can find god using either extremes, pure logic or pure faith, or use both.'[ie pure faith is 'god does exist', then fit daily life...to pure logic which starts with 'does god exist' and thought process proceeds from then which effects daily life...]

An all inclusive 'grouping' with above sentence needed. I think that three basic groups will cover all humans...those that struggle to survive a daily life(due to mental, physical, circumstantial reasons and so least interested in religion/spirituality), 'true searchers' and 'true haters' of god. The last is the least spoken/discussed.

If dawkins is a 'true searcher' and concludes hes an atheist, it could be that he is actually on the spiritual path to god but currently at widest point between logic_faith approach...and as he proceeds the difference starts confluencing to single point again...ie 'atheist-believers' start seeing common ground once again ie when were children and belief in god easier and purer...

If dawkins is a 'true hater'...then gods existence is known, but revolt against god...(bit like devil as angel whom went to war with god cast away for 1000years before arising to become one with god)...the hatred arising from having acted against god due to 'unbalanced self interest' and want to reject the accountability of it whi8ch must come...so here the extreme of range is to convince others god does not exist and down a false path or damage gods name to cause others to reject god to self/group loving...

Hope above makes sense...

And to 'secular humanism' and 'human progress'...is akin to principle of communism...as capitalism and its apparent success but unsustainable due to destruction caused to balance of things ...both dont work...keeping the balance in all materially relevant areas is what will...suppose like god...balanced in all....and acting quickly against any unbalancing factor/organized-force...if we want 'humans' to have survive-able future...

Sam
Ps~even if we could jump into a self sustaining space ship going from planet to planet...unless the above issue is effectively dealt with...that is doomed as well...