'Pelican',

Your post is (mostly) a welcome change to many of the kinds of posts that I read here, from 'religionists' and atheists and the whole gamut around about.

My point wasn't about the articles (though I can't remember an 'Atheist BASHING' one) but the comments that flow on from these articles and particularly the irony that when 'religion' is blamed for all the intolerance and social ills we have, the proponents of such views do little to distinguish themselves from the behaviours they are apparently outraged at.

Naturally, we are more sensitive to and critical of those comments that speak against us.

I wonder though why you think that 'religion-bashing' is basically to be expected if a position like atheism is critiqued for, say, alleged 'moral bankruptcy or impoverishment of ideas'. I would guess that one could expect that there would be 'religionists' that would respond in an emotive and overly polemical way to an article critical of them but would we--should we--simply excuse it?

As some atheists and others regularly tell some of the Christian(?) contributors here, their tone and sometimes cockiness runs contrary to the ethos they say their faith espouses. Likewise, if atheists declare on here they have an equal or better footing when it comes to morality or merely manners, you'd expect the same kind of calling to account.

I don't know whether or not it's true whether "Atheists in general are not religion bashing" because I only here the ones who are. I'm encouraged to hear there is a great number out there (hence 'general') who are not represented by some here. I would like to think they generally have your tone as do most of the Christians I know. There are Christian nutters, religious nutters, atheist nutters (see some comments on Dawkins' website), neo-con nutters,... I'm wary of them all. I am more scared by any nutter than any comment that might be made by a religious person.

What is the great calling of Jesus?

To FIRST love the Lord thy god with all of ones heart, mind and soul, and THEN on that basis practice self-transcending love in ALL relations.

Meanwhile there is some farcical comedy here when Dinesh DSouza is quoted or pointed to as an "authority" on religion. He is a raving-looney-psychopath. The fact that he is taken so seriously in the USA is only an indication of the cultural and Spiritual poverty, and intellectual bankruptcy of those who try to promote christian religiosity in the USA.

And even worse, William Lane Craig who everbody knows is an apologist for genocide, justifying it because his horrible god commanded genocide to be done.

See for instance Creationists For Genocide at:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Genocide.cfm#christ

Remember that "god" told George to invade Iraq!

Same genocidal psychosis as practiced over 2000 years ago.

Plus John Dickson and the crew at the Institute for Public Christianity are a bunch of literalistic simpletons, and also great fans of C S Lewis. There is not a jot of esoteric religion or Spirituality to be found on their website, or the links they provide.

Neither is there a good word to be said about the teachings etc etc of ALL other faith traditions, from any of these dudes.
Their church is in sole possession of the "truth". And they have "gods mandate and commission" to convert all others to the one "true way"---or slaughter anyone who refuses to be converted.

Which thus INEVITABLY becomes the bloody applied politics as described in reference above.

The only thing "militant" about today's atheists (myself included) is that we dare to write about, expound upon, and make our arguments against religion public - and for that we are called militant in order to equate us with terrorists.

We have always existed, but have been kept at bay (sometimes of our own doing) from explaining our case. Now that that has changed and we feel wonderfully free to talk out loud and make our case as necessary we get branded militants.

It is interesting that this type of branding is equivalent to a political correctness that would make most right-wingers go into a fit (and rightfully so).

We will not go away, we will not sulk away, and we will not be stop from writing or making our arguments when, where and how we see fit.

Hi packman

Points taken. I do get rankled about being perceived as morally bankrupt or impoverished on the basis of my non-belief. My point was that if atheists are demonised then, while not condoned, some religion bashing is inevitable. In the same way that a religionist might be insulted by being referred to as brainwashed or less than intelligent for believing in 'fairy tales'.

I get your point that in some ways these discussions are a natural part of the debate. Perhaps these confrontations cannot always be avoided. As an atheist it is difficult to convince a religionist that you can have a strong moral compass and be 'spiritual' in a sense without a religious framework.

Your point about nutters is taken. Any nutter can be scary if their dogma is extremist in nature.

runner
Even if I was predisposed to believe in God I could not believe in a God that would allow a forgiven person into heaven as opposed to a good person. To think otherwise means that an innocent child might be sent to hell or a serial killer to heaven.

My reference to 'brand' of religion was not meant to be derogatory. Perhaps I should have said creed but there are so many denominations within religions that many of them have become brand names with intentional marketing via a branding strategy. Hillsong comes to mind but there are others.

runner, you still have not really answered my question. All you are saying is that you believe in the scriptures but why do you believe in them? How do you know they are authentic and not some construct of man? Please don't say faith, because it has to be more than that otherwise any snake oil salesman could spin the idea of 'faith' for ill ends eg cults. Faith is just believing in something that someone else has told you without evidence. There has to be more to your belief than that.

These are the sorts of discussion I would be interested in, preferably without harsh judgement on either side, but that may be idealistic. :)

Graham,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the book.

I recently read 'The God Delusion' and found it very thoughtful. But Dawkins should have mentioned environmentalism as a religon - he didn't.

Anyway, you thoughts on how diverse the beliefs systems of different Christians can be inspired me to write something about environmentalism.

I've titled it 'Easter Musings on Life and Enviromentalism'. It's here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/easter-musings-on-life-and-environmentalism

I have come to this thread late and the responses by the atheists/agnostics here have covered much of what I would like to think I could say.

A response to packman's claim: "My point wasn't about the articles (though I can't remember an 'Atheist BASHING' one)

Read any of Peter Sellick's articles. We atheists/humanists/liberals and calathumpians are regularly presumed to be selfish, greedy consumers without a care for anyone else by the likes of an article writer of Sellick's standing as well as by the extremist religionists such as runner who, as Pelican as pointed out, condemns all but those who adhere to his 'brand' or 'creed'. This would be enough for us to refute but add in the dictates by the likes of Pell, Nile even politicians like Abbott, all of whom would have everyone governed by the rules of Christianity with particular regard to the status of women, the teaching of science and the right to freedom of belief.

So many religious demand freedom of belief for themselves but deny something as inoffensive as 'nonbelief' to others, how can we not shout "Hypocrite!"?

For centuries agnostics and atheists have remained quiet (mainly to save our lives) but since 9/11 we have begun to question ALL religions not just Christianity.

Graham you are free to believe what you like, however when your supernatural belief receives special treatment in the form of tax-breaks and influences legislation, your beliefs are having a direct impact on the lives of people who do not share them.

Religion is very Orwellian in just who and what it accepts. Atheists just want to get on with our lives, please leave us to do so.