It is true. Much of the trouble in the world IS caused by benighted GODLESS exoteric religionists.

The only source and living Demonstration of Spiritual Truth in the world has always been the Realized Saints, Yogis, Mystics, and Yogis.

It has never come from anywhere else. And certainly not from godless, uptight, pleasureless left-brained third rate hacks such as C S Lewis.

Only men and women of pleasure KNOW the truth, and are thereby qualified to speak of the truth.

Everything else, including the stuff written by Lewis, is just hopeful mutterings covering up the awful despair of someone who has lost the FEELING Heart connection to the Living Divine Radiance.

If you look at photos of Lewis does he look like a man of pleasure? A man sublimed by the love-bliss-radiance of the Living God? On the contrary he looks entirely and completely pleasureless.

In a word up-tight! His godlessness was written all over his stiff pleasureless body and face.

He didnt even know how to relate to women, let alone make passionate love to/with a woman until late in his life. He didnt even like the company of children---he was threatened by their spontaneity, their emotion, their happiness.

Any man who is not capable of unconditional love of, and even the company of both children and women, is not even fit for truly human company, let alone to be considered to be an "authority" on religion.

Did Lewis ever use the words Consciousness, ecstasy, love-bliss, radiant energy. Did he ever lose control or spontaneously babble. Or even know how to sit in contemplative wordless silence for significant periods of time even for a few minutes.

And besides which there is no Truth to be found in the awful prison of the exoteric entirely reductionist religiosity that Lewis promoted.

And in christianity altogether for that matter.

Why do you think Jesus was executed?

Because he was a threat to the power of the then ecclesisatical establishment of his time.

The same condition still applies.

And why only Christianity. What about all the other existing faith traditions "great" and small.

Thanks for the review, Graham. I reckon someone like the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart could be just the man to produce an entertaining and incisive reply to the media event which is the 'new atheism'.

Despite the endorsement of the 'outraged' regulars on this forum, the new atheists are indeed philosophically impoverished, as you say. They are by no means in the league of the contributors to, say, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism or to 'Philosopher without Gods' (Oxford UP) despite the fact they can quote a philosophy text here or there. Dawkins is perhaps the worst. I see no evidence that they have ever read any worthwhile philosophers who disagree with them on the questions they pose... not that there are easy knock-down answers for either 'religious' people or atheists.

There are stupid and violent people who use all kinds of systems of thought--religious or political--to further their agendas. Nationalisms and Imperialisms regularly attempt to hitch religion to their dubious or immoral causes. That doesn't make 'religion' their cause. Life is much more complex... isn't it?

There are atheists who are moral and religioninsts who are immoral and perhaps both are inconsistent in many ways--but one thing is for sure: there is no historically plausible general condemnation of 'religion' such as is often trumpeted here.

The tone, let alone much of the content, of the regular 'religion-bashers' on this forum does not give me much faith in their atheism to provide the difference they hope for.

Not that arguing on forums and in blog comments actually changes minds...

The reason the 'New Atheism' is getting so much press is basically because they're entertaining writers. Not because of the power of their intellectual arguments. Most intellectuals laugh at the philosophical arguments put forward by them, even atheist intellectuals like Michael Ruse and Julian Baggini. All the New Atheists are also embarrassingly ignorant of history, and pretty much make stuff up- as has been pointed out in detail by John Dickson, Dinesh D Souza, Vox Day etc etc.

But of course most of the public don't know these things, they just want to read entertaining books. And so the New Atheists have sold and sold and sold.

If you DO want an antidote though, your best bet would be William Lane Craig. He just demolished Hitchens in debate, according to everyone there (including numerous atheist bloggers). Craig also asked Dawkins to debate him, and Dawkins refused because it "wouldn't be good for his career". He seemed to think Craig was a nobody and claimed to have not heard of him. Well, Craig's actually the most well known fulltime Christian apologist in the world. He's written something like thirty books, selling thousands of copies. He's also one of the greatest philosophers in the world. He's spent most of his career in apologetics and doing philosophy on issues relating to God. And these are the topics which Dawkins has spent his life trying to refute, and now he claims to have not even heard of William Lane Craig! I guess that anecdote illuminates Dawkins' real level of intellectual commitment to anything outside biology

I might add that I haven't actually read any of the New Atheist books from cover to cover, but I have been interested enough to skim through some of them while in a public libraries and bookshops. Based on my experience, I'm not surprised that they've been chastised by so many philosophers and historians.

I spent half an hour or more skimming through Michel Onfray's book in Borders once and dear me, by the end of it I was shaking my head in disgust at the fact that so many ignorant people would end up reading the stuff, and God forbid, believing it. He makes assertion after assertion about history without ANY footnotes or corraborating evidence to back up his big claims. I'm no expert of course, but I did know enough to realise how much crap he was making up, especially on topics like the New Testament, Tacitus, the existence of Jesus etc etc etc

I must be reading a different forum. I see much more atheist bashing in the articles than otherwise.

Just a tip for those wishing not to offend - using terms that imply some form of moral bankruptcy or impoverishment of ideas on the part of atheists would be more likely to incite religion-bashing.

Atheists in general are not religion bashing, the various denominations do enough of that between them. Until recently atheists have been silent and when an author like Dawkins or Hitchins raises their head it is mercilessly chopped off as irrelevant or impoverished.

I am more scared of the religious nutter than any comment that might be made by an atheist. Having dealt with many of them I can tell you they are a sad and deluded lot but I won't judge the mainstream or more liberal Christian by the actions of another in the same way that I hope all atheists are not judged as one homogenous group.

Atheists are not a group in the same way that religious people are. It is just a descriptive label that means non-belief in God.

We don't meet in groups and run anti-religious sermons or the like, we don't judge others as morally better or worse merely on the basis of belief or value systems. Simple.

I would be interested more in knowing why people believe in their particular brand of religion? Or why they believe in God.

The truth is there is demonisation on both sides of the religious divide. We can cherry pick the worst characteristics and traits on both sides but it still comes down to one basic difference. Some believe in a supernatural entity some don't. It is the reasons we differ that are of interest. What makes some people turn to 'faith' while others don't?

I would love a psychological and philosophical article on this subject if it was possible.

Pelican

'I would be interested more in knowing why people believe in their particular brand of religion? Or why they believe in God.'

One of the reasons I believe is because Jesus words describe exactly every person on OLO and in fact every person I have ever met. The prophecies concerning His death and resurrection (written hundreds of years prior) are 100% accurate. It is not a 'brand' that true believers believe in but the saving power of the Lord Jesus Christ. As every other word that Jesus has spoken has shown to be truth so His mention of heaven and hell many times also will prove to be true. Hopefully as many as will humble themselves will receive forgiveness. It won't be good people in heaven but forgiven people. Unfortunately the rest will be in hell.