This is a much nicer article to add to the usual religious debates. Thank you Andrew.

I would only add one small nitpick to the comment you made in reference to "Churches have practical atheists, who say they believe in God, but show no change in behaviour." Atheists who already feel they contribute positively to society and who already act with compassion may not feel the need to change their behaviour.

We are all influenced by "isms" which have been formed from the time we are born and our experiences from childhood are very strong in helping to form the adults we become.

Lets face it most of us seek the same things. A good and satisfying life, to be treated with respect/to treat others with respect and to do no harm.

It is a shame the "isms" sometimes work in opposition to those needs. Particularly considering each "ism" in its own right seeks in some way to achieve the same end. We seem to spend more time debating the validity of our "ism" over another that we forget the ultimate goal.

In real life the truth is that "isms" mean much less than on an opinion forum where we don't have the benefit of knowing a person or seeing facial expressions or body language. Sometimes the written word can be unintentionally misleading and then the passions flow.

Can a world with such a variety of "isms" ever be harmonious? Will the need to be right always win over the need to do right?

Pericles
I see you are at it again.

Dear Pericles
Thank you for your contribution, which, I consider, illustrates the point I am trying to make.

You have, without reference to anything other than your own prejudice, insulted both Andrew and me. Can't you find a civil way of expressing yourself? Just repeating my statement and then heaping abuse on it is not what passes for intelligence. If you don't understand something, why not inquire with the author, or others, as to what it might mean. Maybe I haven't expressed myself with sufficient clarity, maybe you can't understand such things. We will only find out from civil discourse.
FYI, "open-ness and inclusiveness that is at the at the edge of chaos"
refers to including so much diversity that any chance of order or meaning is lost.

Yes, substantiated insults are possible: It's what judges do every day to felons eg "the evidence has demonstrated that you are the worst felon that I have had to deal with".

Some of us are trying to expand our minds and make sense of the world. Opinion can be many things, but in my case, I like to think of informed opinion being the conjectural growing edge of knowledge. It is partly speculation and hypothesis but constrained by what is already known. It's working within the paradigm of reason, but with scope for imagination.

In conclusion, I'd commend to you the Wikipedia site of your Athenian namesake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles), with the hope that if I don't make any sense to you, then he might.

I think the author and most of his respondents have demonstrated a distinct lack of understanding of the nature of the internet, its denizens and their motivations.

Don't ask me to explain or elaborate on that statement (or post) because, as with most things on the internet, if you don't understand it or agree with it, then I am not likely to either explain it to you nor change your mind about it and thus it will waste all of our time. And if you agree with it, then you already think you know what it means and you don't need to waste your time telling me because I don't need your validation (but many others do, so go waste your time on them).

The ability to comment on articles effortlessly and have people read what you write seems like a great idea in theory doesn't it? The reality is that the vast majority of it is complete dross and should never be bothered to have been read, let alone taken seriously. Some people understand this and use the internet for entertainment purposes only instead of continually whining on why can't we make the online 'community' a nicer place, where logic and reason rule and insults are rare? Grow up, nobody's listening because your opinions are retarded.

If you think you are going to "expand your horizons" on internet opinion sites, then please send me your bank account details and I'll deposit some money and give you some valuable information that will expand your horizons.

It's a great pleasure, Jedimaster.

>>Dear Pericles Thank you for your contribution, which, I consider, illustrates the point I am trying to make.<<

I aim to please.

>>You have, without reference to anything other than your own prejudice, insulted both Andrew and me. <<

Hardly.

I referred almost exclusively to your contributions.

Oh, hi Daviy.

>>Pericles I see you are at it again.<<

Yep. Fun, isn't it?

Someone burbles a lot of trite pseudo-intellectual stuff, and I have a quiet chuckle.

Someone else strings together a bunch of clever-sounding words ("open-ness and inclusiveness that is at the at the edge of chaos") and I have a fit of the giggles. Especially since openness is not hyphenated, and the verb should really be plural.

Sort of... punctures its own self-importance, if you see what I mean.

But since we clearly both get something from the transaction, it's all quite symbiotic, I guess.

Bugsy,

'If you think you are going to "expand your horizons" on internet opinion sites, then please send me your bank account details and I'll deposit some money and give you some valuable information that will expand your horizons.'

Amen.

Pericles,

'Someone burbles a lot of trite pseudo-intellectual stuff, and I have a quiet chuckle.'

And I have belly laugh.

Jedimaster,

'Just repeating my statement and then heaping abuse on it is not what passes for intelligence.'

Of course not. But it passes for entertainment. Besides, your comments begged the response they were given. Lighten up man.