Perhaps it is the conviction of an afterlife that is the problem - the risks being of those who do (or) do not act, based on such a belief. This can lead to fatalism, where recognition of another’s suffering gives way to: “it’s god’s will ... but, they have earned a crown in heaven”; it can lead to suicide and killing: “I have killed; become a martyr for my god ... thus am assured of a divine reward.”

How many of us know whether our friends adhere to a religious belief, are atheists, or agnostics. Does it really matter? I was very surprised to find that a friend had a doctoral degree in theology. It does me no credit to admit that “I was surprised”.

Geez. I've been jumping up and down with my hand up in the air like an over-eager schoolkid ever since reading, somewhere back around page 2 of these comments, someone hypothesing about "what-if" apartheid was tied to religion?

That's exactly what made apartheid so evil! Afrikaaners, using the same bible that other mainstream Christians use, use it "prove" that system is what god intended.

When I was living in South Africa there were 6 million white people there: the majority were Afrikaans. So the rejection of apartheid meant for them a rejection of god's word. Indeed it was considered heretical for them to consider the breaking down of apartheid as this was tantamount to the rejection of the Christian god.

The dichotomy in all this (to me, anyway) is that missionaries spent years of their lives and millions of Rand trying to convert the very black people who would suffer from their religion. Even though no black people were permitted inside a whites only church.

It's perhaps behavious such as this that makes so many people so very "vitriolic" towards towards Christianity.

To my mind, anyone unaware of some of the excesses of the apartheid system and who reads up on the atrocities that were committed by decent church-going christians because their bible gave them the "proof" of their righteousness, cannot but become somewhat jaded about the question of the innerency of the bible. Nor question exactly what proofs are available from it.

Danielle (which I think is the most beautiful of all names!) asks:

"How many of us know whether our friends adhere to a religious belief, are atheists, or agnostics. Does it really matter?"

This is a good question, and one which I used to answer in the negative (many years ago). But nowadays, I have come to realise that it really does matter.

Someone who is not atheist must be someone who can suspend rational belief, and can come to conclusions based on a faith rather than a fact. Can we really have any confidence in a decision that that person might make?

We have seen how people act in the name of religion, and we also have seen religious people in power (let's choose Tony Abbott as a 'frinstance') use that power to impose his religious beliefs on all of us, thus making all of us subject to his religion. There are millions of examples. My (Catholic) cousin believes we should do nothing about climate change because the state of the planet is in the hands of her god. Was such a thought as this in the back of Howard's and Bush's minds which caused them to delay accepting the notion of global warming?

So yes, Danielle, it DOES matter. We atheists should be true to our religion and not take up arms to defend our position, but keep on engaging the opposition in friendly and rational discussion. Thus, we will eventually win.

When we meet in Hell, Danielle, please say hello.

The trouble with athieism is that it has evolved as a reactionary philosophy to godism.We humans assume too much.Just because we perceive ourselves to be the most intelligent species on the planet,thus we assume that our consciousness will progress beyond our mortal shackles.
The cosmos as revealled by our scientific minds is non ordinary,with the discovery of black holes,the possibility of parralell universes and even Einstiens's E=MC squared,where he demonstrates that space time and matter are interdependant.These are magical concepts that our ordinary reality cannot fully grasp.

There well may be a human connection with the laws that govern the universe as we know it,but we cannot assume that we are important enough at this stage of our evolution to have some divine connection.
It is our tenuous memory that joins the past with the present,and when that is gone,so is our conscious present being.
I have no memory of existing past lives or predictions of the future.If you want to know,study the religion of skeptical science,of tried and tested hypothesis that assumes nothing.

In the realm of improbability,believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you hear.This is why I have no faith in the traditional religions.Science is a far more logical and dynamic religion, which has provided,and will continue to provide more insight and dynamic solutions to our dilemmas.

You can be spiritual in the sense in wanting to aspire to a higher plane of intellect,but that does not mean reward of eternal blissful being with some father figure.Take life for what it is with all it's limitations,and enjoy the moment.

I agree the good feeling and the meaning a believer gets from their belief does not help convince anyone that God exists. So, that’s a weakness in Bowden's argument. When he says there are no atheist aid agencies, I think he’s saying that to be an atheist is not in itself very interesting: is one a capitalist atheist, or a socialist one, for example? A greedy one or a modest one? Etc. This is why there are no atheist aid agencies: atheism itself doesn’t amount to anything positive or constructive. “Secular” agencies exist, but they have a mixed membership – so their existence is no thanks to atheism.

I don’t mean atheists are bad, or anything like that. I mean their virtues – their interest in humanity’s welfare etc – are separate from their atheism. They are likely to be humanists, but they don't have to be, do they?

Beyond that, I’m with Sellick – re the impression God makes on the believer. I don’t agree with the posters who say the onus of proof is on the theists. At least, not in the way they mean. When a theist comes up against empiricist scepticism – “evidence please” – the theist is pretty stuck, apart from the Scriptures, but that’s not surprising because the theist is usually not an empiricist. I know people “selling God” have an onus, but that doesn’t mean they have to be empiricists. They have to “impress”, in the way Sellick refers to, not prove. The idea of empirical proof is artificially narrow, and there is no reason why an atheist should adhere to it.

The problem with the atheists I’ve read is their assumption that empiricism is true, and that it’s the only reasonable way of thinking. I don’t think they have to prove there’s no God, but I think they have to provide a reason for calling theists “irrational”, instead of just repeating it ad nauseam. I know it’s because they are themselves empiricists, but I think they should attempt to establish empiricism (or at least recommend it!), instead of just assuming it.

Pax,

The title of Dawkin's book says it all 'The God Delusion'.

Anyone who believes in a God is deluded - that is, they are suffering from a mental health problem. It will not be long before these deluded people will be rounded up to be suitably 'corrected' thereby completing the circle that Dawkins et al claim they are exposing.