GP, none of these books is a "rant". Obviously, you have not read them. You are thus unqualified to comment. They are all closely reasoned, with the possible exception of Hitchens', who has had to concede that Orthodox Jews do not perform the conjugal act through a hole in the bed sheet, a claim he made in his book.

Benjamin O'DonnellI " It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the dogmatism of Communism that made it the architect of so much 20th century horror."
Of course, we are never given any examples of what dogmatism he refers to or precisely is; it is just thrown in. He also neglects to mention that Stalinism (a right wing nationalist tendency) was not Communism. Moreover, that there was an alternative to Stalinism called the Left Opposition led by Leon Trotsky. Mr. O'Donell is a right wing supporter of capitalism which he neglects to mention.

As many workers understand and have experienced "the architect of so much 20th century horror" was capitalism administered by the liberal politicians who were given the levers of power as long as they defended the ruling financial oligarchy. As well as, promoting "we live in a democracy" - when it is only the democracy of and exclusively for "moneybags."
In 1914 the capitalists and their liberal politicians promoted the "war to end all wars" that is, until the next one came along. The liberals never principally nor publicly explained the wars were about dividing up the world for resources and profits. Let us not forget the new wars that are now on the drawing board including the possible use of nuclear weapons. During the 1960's the liberals then cried "troops out" but since then many have have moved to the right and now chant "troops in".
Capitalism too is responsible for multi millions of workers that starve to death slowly in many countries and the thousands of children that go blind every day for want of clean water; administered and consecrated by the liberal politicians.

Thinking is an evolutionary concept. Learning to think together is the triple treat to be felt if the the aim is reach a humanity beyond all forms of violence and terror.

I agree that it aint all about people, time and religiion. That it is about dogma, and how it's functionism plagues us from the will to discover more about what we can breath... come to know or even know about what is true within all of us.

I particularly like the quote about Sweden. That when polled, "more than 80 per cent of Swedes say they don't believe in God and more than 40 per cent explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest homicide, poverty, teenaged pregnancy and STD rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with high levels of wealth, very little social unrest and a near 100 per cent lliteracy rate."

http://www.miacat.com/

But religion is not just, or even mainly, about believing or faith, it is about

(1) hoping that you can live forever and if all you have to do is fall on your knees and pray, well that's a small price to pay. Schopenhauer remarked that if he could pursue the most devout christian that there wasn't a heaven, they would become an atheist in twenty minutes. Or something to that effect. And

(2) finding a purpose for one's life and dedicating oneself to it. More sophisticated Christians may have the nous to realise that a smart god, one who is not fooled by people falling on their knees to her, would also require a bit of good deeds (or twice as much prayer, or some mixture of the two). So they might get some of the good deeds under their belt to make sure of getting into heaven. But it has to be pointed out that, even amongst Christians, some missionaries for example, it is very likely that they were/are not as interested in the heaven part as in the good deeds part - that they do actually have a sense of purpose in helping their fellow human beings, just like some of us atheists do.

What actually amazes me is that many of the people on this thread seem to think (and act) as if, in the absence of a god, there is no purpose to human life. Of course there is: us, the human race, all of humanity, especially the oppressed and down-trodden, the women and children in Indigenous settlements, the people in Burma and Darfur (and now we hear about the CAR as well) taking refuge in the forests and deserts. And

Joe

I would even respectfully suggest that, even if God has the best tunes, atheists have the best purposes. Working for human betterment (including, of course, fixing up the environment) - what better purpose could there be ? Work only for yourself and powder your little soul and sure enough, nobody will remember you. Leave behind a better world, as much as you can, and whether you seek it or not, you will be remembered. We are both the purpose, and the means to attain it. Please, no more 'there is no purpose, we are all worm-food' crap. Leave that to the disillusioned Christians who have just discovered that there is no heaven, no god in control, no nicely closed world. Good on you, Mia. Love your site.

Joe

I believe in God. Believing in God, I find purpose and the afterlife (among other things), but I know I didn’t start believing in God in order to find a purpose or in order to persuade myself I could live forever. I just believe in God. My “reasons” would form a narrative, which I won’t trouble you with, but I don’t know anyone who believes in God in order to acquire purpose or eternal life. I’m sure there are some, or even a lot, but I don’t know them. For me, and Christians like me, the belief is the starting point: the purpose etc follow from it, they don’t precede it.

Many of you seem to think that belief in God can be taken on or shrugged off at will. In my experience, it isn’t like that. For example, the lack of scientific evidence is not persuasive. People like me are not relying on science. This is Dawkins’ biggest error, I think: he doesn’t understand the way his targets think. This may be arrogance or a lack of empathy on his part, I don’t know, but his arguments miss the mark by a wide margin. I’m sure empirically minded atheists find his work delightful, and that’s fine, but I think he’s wasting his time with religious people.

And calling me names, like “irrational” and “deluded”, is more irritating than persuasive.

Pax,