"What is new is the ridiculous notion that science has somehow proved there is no god."

Its amusing that you made a point that Dawkins would agree with.

"The ever changing theories on evolution make our Government back flips look minor in comparison."

Changing how one understands things in the light of new information is the rational way of behaving. Or do you still hold the same opinions you had when you were 12?

"The idea that secular humanism is backed up by true science is absurd!"

I think you're confusing philosophy and faith. Most religions combine the two, but atheism is solely about faith (or rather lack there of) and secular humanism is solely a philosophy; one backed by logical reasoning. Science is the study of the world as is, and makes not attempt to explain why, just merely how.

"Atheists need to adopt a more investigative approach maintaining and testing tenative hypotheses, as do Theisists. Neither, should preach, rather debate the evidence", says Oliver.

Oliver, that is rubbish. Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something. Do you know the story of the black swans?

The burden of proof lies with the believers. All we have to do is show that they are wrong in their belief. Can you prove to me that Bertrand Russell's Brown Teapot does not exist? Further, I would not even ask you to "adopt a more investigative approach" in proving that it does not exist.

"In pubs members of the Salvation Army collect monies for their charities", the author says.

The Salavation Army also have the hypocracy to collect monies for their charities in Gay and Lesbian pubs. Yet they openly condemn the same people.

Another question that needs to be asked, how much of the money collected and the money earned on their massive investments, do the Salvation Army contribute to their community "Welfare" work.

A few years ago a UK TV journalist did an expose on charities, and it was revealed only 14% of the donation money the UK Salvation Army receives goes to their community "Welfare" work!

The existence of god is irrelevant.I consider the deepening of the understanding of our own nature and our place in the cosmos,warts and all,would be a good place to start.You don't deepen your intellect by sucking up to a father figure in the hope of a better life.
The god concept and atheism are probably both short of the mark.I think that most people have two bob each way,they don't think most religions are factually credible,but the feel good factor of all powerful father figure,gives emotional comfort.Because of emotional security it affords us ,religion will never disappear,however it should never be allowed to have absolute power in our Govts.There is no proven connection between religious organisations and their perceived higher authority.Religion should never be allowed to over ride logic or proven facts.

Many of you are confusing the meaning of “purpose” as something that has been assigned by a higher power.

For example, what is the purpose of the North Star? Was it put here to guide early mariners, or did they simply learn that they could use it to navigate? It had no “purpose” until we decided to use it for one. Human life is the same way. We have no assigned purpose from a god, nor does life have any assigned or intrinsic meaning. We do, however, create our purposes and meanings through interaction with others. The purpose of a teacher is to educate; the meaning of parenthood is to raise ethical children.

Realizing that we are responsible for creating our own purposes and meanings is a vastly richer experience than simply falling back on the bronze-age concept of “God wants me to act like this.”

Please don’t waste the tiny sliver of life you have on Earth because you somehow think you’re going to get another one. You’re not. One per customer, please, and enjoy it to the fullest; morally, ethically and completely.

there's something very strange about bowden's article. i'll agree there's a nasty edge to dawkins and hitchens (haven't read the others), but that's really beside the point. and their attacks on religion are really beside the point. the issue is that religion perhaps gives "meaning" to millions of people. but what does that meaning really mean if it is premised upon almost certain falsehoods? it obviously means something. but what?

bowden's 50-50 comment that "nobody can present believable proof either way" is a ridiculous summary of dawkins, and disgraceful pussyfooting from a purported philosopher. unless bowden addresses honestly the compelling reasons for doubting religious beliefs, he cannot honestly address the meaning such beliefs might give, or the dangers such beliefs might bring.

finally, bowden implictly suggest that if meaning doesn't come from religion, then it is arbitrary. so, arbitrary religious belief is not arbitrary (bowden doesn't distinguish religions). but, the attempt to free oneself of comforting fairy tales, to think clearly and honestly of the human condition, that's arbitrary? amazing.