I find much more meaning and useful information in scatology than I do in eschatology. Although the latter seems far more aligned with figurative bovine subcategory of the former.

Sorry, I forgot to add the obligatory "to me".

Oliver, that's a completely irrelevant tangent you just went on.

If Dawkins believes "very strongly that God does not exist" then he is an atheist, regardless of any rejoinders.

Come on mate, start talking some sense

Sells,

The reason that eschatology is not studied, is that it lacks credibility.

The bible's predictions of the end of the world were "soon". The complete failure of the world to end over the ensuring couple of millenia kinda took the urgency out of the issue.

Temperance of speech is required in society firstly so as not to offend, and secondly to be taken seriously. Provocative statements in line with your beliefs such as the famous "women are like uncovered meat" or "the halocast didn't happen", will ensure people relegate you to the lunatic fringe.

Trav,

I suggest that Richard Dawkins has the right to say he is not an atheist. The point he makes was known to philosophy before his so called belief scale. What underlies his comment are the ideas, he is fallible and that propositions should be tentatively held and tested regularly.

Which statement is more credible?

- I am the fallible Dr Dawkins.
- I am the infallible Rev Smith.

If one grants infallibility to our Rev. Smith, on the basis of the theist subject, why not the infallible High Priestess of Apollo?

Is it not best to say Dr Dawkins, Rev Smith and the High Priest are all fallible and should use the rejoinder, "I may be wrong"?

Sells,

You are too fond of using that word “liberals” as a weapon to divide and conquer. “If you’re not with me you’re against me”. This is not the voice of sweet reason.

Secondly the agenda of those who disagree with your approach is not, by and large, to erase distinctions and discernments. My own intention is to insist on a basic point: that the essence of being human is the drive to actualise one’s full potential to become a person in a community of persons. I call this the will of God – the ground of my being. In as much as every human is born with this essential imperative we are all equal in worth. While equal we are not the same: genetics, family, culture and everyday choices determine the path through which the drive is expressed. To say this is not to advocate “enforced egalitarianism”.

If you want people to approach your offer of truth, they need to see it in an upturned palm rather than a closed fist. Opinions are obviously not all valid; they must be sifted and debated and sometimes shown to be wrong – even mine. But in the process we must accept that God’s will operates in all humans, each unique, nudging them in diverse directions with the same potential destination. And they don’t all go to church, and many even call themselves atheists. If we want to suggest some are on a bum steer our language must consistently make it clear that they are worth no more as persons than we.

Another unhelpful choice is the metaphor of the sword. These days the image of the church as a crusading band of killers is not inclined to draw people to a pew. A penetrating mind and a cutting tongue can be used for either good or bad ends, but perhaps a strong ploughshare would encourage more people to give thought to your message.