It is my view that the difference between religious and non religious individual is a question of mental make up. Let me say here and now that I am firmly in the atheist camp. To my mind belief in god, gods, goddesses, angles, devils, etc is plain daft.

The claim that the ranting of a Mohamed or a Jesus or a Budda etc., as they are told to us, are in some way sacred is sheer nonsense. Especially of note is that the sects and sub-sects within each major grouping seem at times to hate each other with a deep visceral hate. The same degree of hate that may be experienced by some sets in Islam, Judaism Christianity, to all members of some opposed religion. Is there only one chief spaghetti monster or is there a three headed version a sort of trinity. Who knows? Yet many think it of importance. Why I know not?

This is the dichotomy:

• My version of atheism requires evidence that can be supported by observation, or statements verified by experimentation. Not only once, but many times and always with the best methodology of the day. Reason that is the rules of logic and arithmetic can be applied to statements (axioms) to derive other statements (theorems) that can then be empirically verified. The final test is pragmatic does it work. As an atheist I do not seek the myth of absolute truth. By the same token I have no interest in trying to answer imponderable questions, such as what is the purpose of existence?

• The religious camp derives its beliefs from, faith, revelation or some ancient text. Some religious sects use strict logic to derive further statements but do not demand empirical verification. Such a belief system with out empirical evidence has about as much structural integrity as a “house of cards.” Yet other religious sects say they relate to emotion and /or instinct and argue that rules of logic and consistency have no place in their system.

I am a protestant and an evolutionary biologist, somewhere round C.S.Lewis territory. I am not a creationist but I reject materialism. It reduces the mind to a machine. How can you then trust it? Where will you find the free will to choose good over bad (ethics) or truth over error (reason)? When skeptical and atheistic commenters denounce the lack of rationality in religion, have they asked these questions about their own belief system?

Commenters often denounced religion for not making a perfect world. Would they prefer the impeccably religion-free societies of marxism (body count 100 million)? Do not take the relative blessings of Christian society for granted. And remember, when people stop believing in the traditional God, they believe not in nothing but in anything - marxism, fascism, the sort of environmentalism that blocked DDT use against malaria in the third world, producing another body count in the millions - anything.

I find the whole concept of "New Atheism" as ridiculous as the basis on which the Abrahamic religions base their Godly claims.

I find it amazing that atheists buy books like Dawkins when they allegedly don't believe in a God. I might write a book about nothingness and make it a snappy read... Please buy it...lol

Why do people need any book other than the Bible, or the Qur'an or similar? I don't need to read an Atheist book to pull holes in religions and religious books!

This God stuff sure is a money spinner... Wasn't it the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh of the Orange people fame who said "Always sell an intangeable"!

Well Atheism is selling books on non-belief in a God that they say doesn't exist... the success formula continues!

When a Christian can show me proof that "an amputees leg" was regrown through God's grace I might listen!

When a Christian shows me "God feeding the starving" like he allegedly did in Exodus 16: 14-15 I might listen!

When Christian Churches follow Jesus teachings on money I might listen! Christianity is a get rich quick scheme!

When Christians actually follow Jesus' teachings and tell the truth about the Bible... I might just listen!

When a creationist tells me where Cain's wife came from, other than an incestuous relationship with a supposed (never mentioned) sister I might listen!

But to read books on Atheism is laughable.

I don't believe in fairies either but I'm not going to read someone's views on the non-belief in fairies now am I?

There is no "new Atheism" like there is no "new Christianity" ... They are old ideas rehashed over and over!

If you want to disprove God use the Bible.. It is excellent for that exact purpose

For 20 years or so out of my 51 I described myself as an atheist. I have friends who are atheists (my last long-term partner was one) and I have friends who are Christians. I don't ascribe virtue to all Christians, nor do I ascribe vice to all atheists. When I was an Atheist I tried to live my life on Christian principles. Now that I describe myself as a Christian I still try to live my life on Christian principles.

Christian principles infuse our society and they are a force for good. They make this a more humane society than most others now and before.

We are about to celebrate Easter. What is Easter about? Easter is about a man who turns his back on the possibility of wealth and power and is executed as a criminal because he believes it is God's will and that it will save the world. It inverts the normal pyramid of values. And here we are 2000 years later and we still commemorate it.

This is a really special moment in our history. Whether you believe or not you can't dismiss these events and the beliefs that surround them, or villify them, as Hitchens and Dawkins do. Someone who really follows Christ is not going to damage their fellow man. If someone does, then you can say with certainty that they are not acting as a Christian. To say that "God is not good" is just a patent nonsense if you mean that belief in the Christian god has been a bad thing.

I agree that there are many strange beliefs that various Christians hold. That's one of my criticisms of the book - that he does not try to defend the whole gamut of believers. But most of us, Christian and non-Christian, believe things that are wrong, or not wholly right. If we are going to start condemning people for that, then everyone is condemned and the conversation has nowhere to go.

Ok Graham, you described yourself as an atheist, whatever.

The truth is you (alongside everyone else on this blue-green rock) don't know exactly what you are commemorating this weekend.

The reality of this world is that everyone has their internal mental models of how the world works and none of them are truly 'correct'. But many of them approximate reality well enough that they allow one to thrive or at least don't get them killed.

Witness economics. They were so sure they new how the economy worked, had their models approximated reality well enough that they thought they had it all worked out. Wrong (obviously so). But the economists and their ideas and models are still here. For religion, it takes physical or conscious wiping out of a sect or peoples beliefs (eg Arianism, Gnosticism) to get rid of the inherited historical link, but even then the ideas remain, even if as 'ghosts'.

I have no idea whether you know what the majority of "Hindu principles" or "Buddhist principles" are, but I assure you that the countries that live by them do fairly well (because many of them are the SAME principles as anywhere else), and many of the inhabitants of those countries that I know personally don't really want to be anything else. So-called "Christian principles" that are unique to Christianity are not even necessary for survival or even thriving. Many codes of conduct are conducive to civilisation.

Noone has a "wholly right" belief. It is this absolutism and belief that their religion is actually "right" and that any idea is or can be "wholly right" (or 'perfect') that I object to. The other thing I also object to is the false dichotomy argument that says if one holds that nothing can be "wholly right", then nothing can be "wholly wrong" either (i.e. atheism leads to open slather). That is just plain stupid.

Having skimmed both Dawkins and Hitchens, I can say as an agnostic that I'm not much impressed. Hitchens in particular is a vigorous polemicist, never shy of using a cheap shot to discredit other views.

Having said that, I've also read some modern (mostly American) Christian apologetics. Comparing modern apologetics to Dawkins et al is like comparing Harold Robbins to Shakespeare. Perhaps I've read a poor sample, but this is a literature in dire trouble. For example, I think the best use for Lee Strobel's bestselling "A Case for Faith" is as a primer for students learning about logical fallacies. The thing is stuffed full of strawmen, argumentum ad populum, invalid analogies, false premises etc etc. (even a few argumentum ad Hitlerum, including a Christian Hitler True Scotsman fallacy)

I may well read 'A Friendly Letter to Skeptics and Atheists', it certainly sounds better than the tosh served up by Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias et al. And I'm unlikely to read anything by Vox Day/Theodore Beale, who denies God's omniscience. After all, I might not believe in God, but the God I don't believe in is omniscient.