Ah Pericles...my deceitfulness pales in comparison to your self serving post's.

You may want to discount the work of doctors of sociology by only mentioning the bachelor of divinity (out of his many qualifications), but really that shows just how low you are willing to stoop. Note that Dr R Bibby has also received the Order of Canada. Hardly equates to a little known born again Christian blogger whose integrity is disparaged simple because he has Christian banners on his site.

And the second academic you have the hubris to insult? A professor from the Institute of Christian Studies? For a whilst yes, but also a professor at the university of Toronto and the VU University Amsterdam. He also has 3 masters degrees and a PhD. But obviously, your vast intellect and knowledge would prefer to dismiss him.

The point remains Pericles. Rather than looking at the quality of the work, Sancho, and now yourself, seem content to simply dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your comfortable undemanding worldview. Compared with Gregory Paul's unverifiable research (did you bother to check Paul's credentials pericles or is this just one more area where you lack integrity), which seems to be peddled by supposedly 'rational' atheists, the articles linked to are a bastion of academic work.

Great post Candide. I don't know how many times I have tried to make that point on these boards but the message does not seem to have percolated through. You are right it is a very important distinction (between belief something does not exist and the absence of belief one way or the other) but far too subtle for most, it would seem. When viewed through the prism of a religious worldview, the absence of belief in a deity must constitute a belief in itself.

Atheism is no more a belief than not believing in astrology. Or as someone on this thread has already said, baldness a hair colour. I can imagine a future when the word "atheism" becomes as relevant as "suffragette" (which is irrelevant in this country at least) because the need for a word to describe someone who stands counter to the dominant paradigm will no longer exist.

And well said to you too renegade science.. after all when will all these uppity damn atheist authors stop writing such ridiculously popular tomes that are clearly striking a chord with millions across the world and generating heated dissent in print media, blogs and fora across the world?

Grey said "Here is a hint. Stop reading Sam Harris and Dawkins. Go read some history instead of their purile [sic] rants."

No. We won't actually. Maybe it's possible to read history too? But thanks anyway for the suggestion. And could you actually refer to me a sentence by Harris which you would describe as a puerile rant?

All my life, since I jettisoned childish belief in Jesus at the same time as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, I have been subjected to rude, nasty accusations by religious types who presume to know about my ethics and morality. At the same time, throughout my life I have witnessed the immorality of child sex abusers, theocratic dictators, mad or hate-filled religious leaders or just plain hypocrites whose ethics I certainly don't share. Their behaviour does not seem to make a single dent in believers' certitude in the moral primacy of whichever supernatural fantasy they subscribe to. At last atheists are starting to be heard, and this article is another that raises the standard of the debate and calmly puts a rational view on this issue.
It is very simple: there is no correlation between capacity to believe in the supernatural and ethics. I cannot possibly believe in something for which there is no evidence. No amount of forcing can make me think that fairytales are real. What am I do to, according to the believers - kill myself before I really hurt someone?

My my, Grey, did I touch a chord?

>>You may want to discount the work of doctors of sociology by only mentioning the bachelor of divinity... etc.etc<<

You are the topic here, Grey, not the good doctors and their PhDs. I am certain that they are truly wonderful people, highly intellectual and immensely qualified human beings.

You would have us believe that their background is irrelevant to their output, which is bizarre. You cannot, even by sustained application of your trademark sneer, dismiss the underlying point, that they are hardly unbiased in their approach to the subjects at hand.

You broadside aimed at examinator went as follows:

>>The links I provided link to research and hence, back up my comments with evidence. Your comments however, stop at mere assertion (and false assertion at that). Good to see your consistent standards.<<

Your links were singularly self-serving, and came to us from sources that clearly have the same pro-theist bias that you yourself proudly display. That hardly qualifies you to wag your finger at examinator for his "mere assertions", still less at me for pointing out the clear taint of partiality in your choice of reference..

My post should have read:

"popular rumour has it that atheists have cranial horns and sacrifice babies, this is untrue. Their essential distinction is that atheists have no invisible means of support."

Thank you for telling me about this rumour. I will look for horns on my husband's head and sacrificial babies in his desk. Actually, I don't think about atheists much. What they choose to believe is what they choose to believe, and I hope they grant me this liberty. And my means of support are not invisable. I see them at church every week.

For those unaware that Grey is not an impartial observer and commentator on this thread, look here. http://alangrey.blogpot.com/ This site is ‘interesting’ and well worth visiting. The information leading to this location is freely available on the On Line Opinion Users page.

Here are some extracts from a page at the following URL:http://alangrey.blogpot.com/Documents/Church_Desk/Cults.htm.”

“Can a person believe in evolution and be a true born-again Christian? The answer is clearly NO.”

Whilst not intending to turn this debate into evolution V’s creationism, it is best people reading posts know the take on ‘reality’ of a poster. Maybe some do already, but my guess is that not all do.

David