"And within that limitation they attack only the three Abrahamic religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity."

Nope - Hitchens has a good crack at Buddhism in "God is not Great." (pp. 198-204).

"None of them will admit that the cause of war may equally be in the winning of territory, power or resources."

Huh? You aren't reading the same books I have - the whole point of them is the way in which religious belief has been inculcated in the masses so that they can be used as cannon fodder for the political ambitions of the elite.

"Hitchens’ challenge is easily reversed: to identify any atheist run charity, replicated many times over, than gives help to the poor. Fortunate perhaps, that atheists are not into helping others in any organised way, given the evangelical vitriol with which the current atheistic writings condemn the beliefs of the majority of the human race."

Others have had a crack at this - it is a stupid challenge, because atheists don't "believe" in anything, by definition, without evidence, so why would they organise a charity based on that? Secular charities on the other hand are numerous, Medecins sans frontieres, in addition to those already named.

"Wonderful as these pursuits may be, they are pastimes, pleasant fill-ins, without a deeper meaning beyond the normalities of our daily lives."

Thank you for your (not so) humble opinion, because that's all that statement is. Many would argue that the pursuit of philosophy is an admirable way to fill a life and to give meaning to it.

"Until they contribute to that search, the anti-religionists will, I suspect, enjoy little success."

Unless of course, you count book sales. Apparently they have struck a chord with more than a few people?

(cont.)

Cazza: "Re posts by healthwatcher and Chade, I believe Peter Bowden's point is that there are few, if any, specifically atheist charities providing these services (as opposed to secular charities which may or may not be full of atheists) - something that is difficult to dispute."

It is difficult to dispute, because as I said above, it is a silly thing to say.

Ian D: "Bigotry and intolerance of the beliefs, values and behaviours of others is the start of much of the unnecessary and destructive conflict in our world, be they demonstrated by fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims or atheists."

The atheists I know just want to be left alone by religion, and for religion to be excluded from running the state, which to a large degree it has in this country, thankfully. You can believe whatever you want but as far as determining how society should be run, history has done nothing if not demonstrate that religious faith has no place. Please refer to Meg Wallace's excellent article of the 16th of Jan - "Parliament is not a church."

Peter Bowden's is typical of the believer's arguments that depend on one's believing before they can be accepted.
There is nothing in his article which even makes me think "hey, he has a point there", except perhaps his desire to keep vitriolic comments to a minimum.
I remember hearing a colleague of Mother (Sister?) Theresa's being interviewed on ABC breakfast by (can't remember the name ... predecessor to Angela Catterns and went to 2GB) who revealed that Mother Theresa's aim was to do good on earth so that she might take a place in Heaven. Sounds like a pretty selfish attitude to me, and I have often wondered if the motive of other (religious) charity workers is the same.
Peter Bowden seems to be unable to reconcile a meaning to life without a god. "I am, therefore a god must have made me", seems to be his creed. Perhaps he is like a cousin of mine, who asked me who I prayed to, who I sought solace from, when I needed comfort. She, too, could not understand.

Contemporary atheism does not "destroy mankind's history, replacing it with an empty nothing". It requires that we look at history without the lens of theological bias; and it replaces it with human relations. It is incredible to denigrate human relationships to "nothing" as the author does.

Dennett does not need to explained how mythic practises transformed into monotheism. It was already explained almost one hundred years ago by Durkheim in "The Elementary forms of Religious Life".

Atheism and spirituality are not incompatible. For an interesting discussion of the possibility of religious atheists see D. Midbar's essay at

http://www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com

Religion started to unravel after WWII, when new translations of the Bible and the use of contemporary language in liturgies required “ordinary” worshippers to think about and try to understand what it all meant. When the - often sublime – aesthetic experience offered by ancient rituals, language and music in old churches was compromised, many thinking people were forced to substitute understanding and intellectual belief for faith. Once one begins to question the historical and intellectual basis for religion, it is difficult not to become increasingly aware of, and intolerant of, the many absurdities associated with organised religions. Once alerted to these, it is a short step to identify the sheer evil of so much “religious” activism.

Of course, agnosticism is seen as a cop out by atheists, but until someone can explain extra-sensory perception, ghosts and similar psychic phenomena, it is the only reasonable poison to take.