Not a bad piece actually. Generally, I'm the first to criticise articles that attempt to put religious morality ahead of secular, but I don't see this one doing that.

The comment:

"Religion gives support to millions. If our present day atheists want to fight for an extremely worthy cause - to eliminate the excesses of religion, they would be best advised to search for ways to reform the fundamentalists in the religions, along with fundamental atheists."

Is accurate. Similarly, his comment:

"If we search back through the atheist philosophies of the past, through Mill, Hume, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, we find a questioning - a gentler, agnostic questioning. A clear condemnation of the excesses of religion, yes, along with sincere doubts about a personal God, but accompanied by an acknowledgement that we do not know."

Is also accurate. The key part, is the last phrase - "an acknowledgement that we do not know."

This indeed, is the central tenet here that everyone - atheist, christian, muslim needs to grapple with.

I couldn't help but reject the earlier comment by Sells, who said that religion was not derived from a need of comfort, rather that it was a "truth" impressed upon people. Of course, as an agnostic, this comes across to me as being nothing more than "because I said so."

Which, ultimately is the chief criticism I have of any religion, and ultimately, any statement about god that the speaker claims is accurate and irrefutable, with the sole exception of "we do not know" - this includes comments by militant atheists, saying god doesn't exist.

I have to agree with Peter Bowden there is no cast iron proof that God does not exist. Equally I see no need to postulate the existence of a deity (flying spaghetti monster) in any form. The onus of proof in my opinion is on the religious people to prove the existence of a God. So far through out the course of human history they have failed to do this. Bertrand Russell in his history of Western Philosophy sates that Aquinas had five proofs of Gods existence. Of course Aquinas did not attempt to provide an empirical demonstration of the reality of any God or Gods.

No doubt to the believer the existent of God is “self-evident.” For myself a belief in God is a clear absurdity. To Freud it was an “illusion.” To Dawkins it is a “delusion.” To the former a distorted sensory perception leading to a false belief. While the latter makes a stronger statement placing religious belief at the borders of psychopathology.

I intend to live and enjoy what ever remain years left to me with out adopting any of the numerous religious myths. I do not consider this to mean that I am immoral; that my life is empty; that I can not enjoy social relationships; appreciate art or whatever.

If Bowden or others wish to say my life is empty and void of purpose that is their prerogative. Frankly I do NOT give a dam. I will not suspend my right to critical thinking in the “hope of experiencing” the illusory comforts said (with out proof) to be offered by religion.

Error:

"the Hewbrews didn't move from polythesism to henothesism... -O.

Should be:

"the Hebrews didn't move from polythesism to mpnotheism"..."

Ancient ribal based religions tend to be henotheist, wherein over time their god becomes more important. Often iniyially as a war god to defeat enemies. After the war some practitioners want to change horses, because an agricultural communiy at peace does want/need a war god. Herein, one option is revert to polthesism, another is to become monothesists, but rewrite the history of the god.

It is also interesting to note that tribal gods are involved in Epiphanies. The High God will communicate Law directly with a tribal leader. Alternatively, the High God of a patheon does not communicate Law directly to we mere morals. Neither Zeus nor Amon-Ra would have made open contact with Moses [or Mohammed], as did Yehweh, the volcano god. Albeit, Yehweh did in Hebrew accounts of the the Cannanite Bal usurp El, Yehweh's father and by extrapolation God the Grandfather ;-)

The recent spate of marvellous books on atheism has been a welcome development for me, after years of being ear-bashed by religious people. At last, there is some balance in the public argument. I have read most of the books this author mentions and I have found them to be fair, interesting, intelligent and reasonable.

Religious people seem deeply threatened by atheists and are suspicious of our motives, but it is very, very simple. Some of us cannot believe in something that has no proof and no basis in reality. And that's it. Everything else flows from this simple, uncomplicated fact. I wish the point didn't have to be made again and again, but not believing in the supernatural does not mean we have no ethics; the two things are not connected in any way. Indeed, most of the people I mix with are atheists or agnostics and you would be hard-pressed to find a more kindly, sensitive or generous spirited bunch. And we help with charitable donations and otherwise pitch in where we can. Religious people do not have the monopoly on altruism.

I don't see why people have to rend their garments trying to find some sort of "meaning" that can, apparently, only have truth when associated with strange supernatural fantasies. The "meaning" is what we put into our own lives and how we interact with our loved ones, our friends and our colleagues. Trying to search for anything above and beyond that results in the creation of elaborate fantastical edifices. Of course non-believers are going to question these and find them ridiculous.

Peter Sellick, although you like to think of yourself as an esteemed “Christian theologian”, you are, in fact, nothing but a dogmatist par excellence. I mean, why do you even bother to engage in forums in which rational discussion is used to facilitate debate?? For it seems apparent that, for you, truth-statements require no rational justification at all. And if Truth is, as you say, simply a matter of sitting back and waiting to be “impressed” from above, then why do you persist in trying to win people over in forums like this? Why bother at all?!

Well, it turns out that I like your style of philosophising! Because we Pastafarians also believe that the Truth has been indelibly impressed upon us! The Truth of the Creator Himself… none other than His Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM)! And remember, Sells, just like you, no amount of reason or evidence contrary to our belief system is going to sway us from the Truth of His Noodliness. For we, too, are dogmatists! And no amount of solid reasoning or indisputable factual information or overwhelming and mounting evidence contrary to the Word of the FSM is going to dampen our belief in Him!

Atheism is not new. The Psalmist rightly wrote 'that a fool says in his heart that there is no god.' What is new is the ridiculous notion that science has somehow proved there is no god. Dawkin's and his like are more dogmatic towards his assumptions (like evolutionist) than most believers. The atheist often have more 'faith' than the believers. The ever changing theories on evolution make our Government back flips look minor in comparison. The idea that secular humanism is backed up by true science is absurd!