Who wrote this piece? it is so full of straw men and a misunderstanding of the issues, that it is embarrassing to read in The Times.

> *It is not a provable dimension. But it is one
> of extraordinary power and potential.*

That is precisely Dawkins's point.

Gern Mitchell-Tapping, Hay, UK

How should believers respond? With honesty and integrity would be a nice start, some that this piece is sadly lacking. It says much about the state of the debate that the only response the faithful can give is one of misrepresentation, factual errors, misquotes and, well, lies.

The Times should be thoroughly ashamed of this frankly appalling piece of journalism.

Charlie, Dundee, UK

"Does God exist?" It depends on what you understand by God. If you are thinking of a person with grey beard looking down from above the clouds at what each and everyone is doing, then No, he does not exist. But if you are referring to a causeless primordial existence on which everything and everyone is based, then He certainly does. If you take away all the layers of false identities with which you are involved: body, mind, ego, etc. then what is left is a Universal existence or Universal Self which is One. That is God.

These problems of whether God exists or not are peculiar to western culture. I had the same problems until I came across Hinduism [particularly Vedanta] and other Eastern religions. It opened my eyes to the real message behind Christianity. Something has happened in the development of western culture which has created a contradiction between science and god. Science IS an aspect of God. God exists in and through all world processes. There is no contradiction.

Charles, Bristol, UK

What exactly is a Militant Atheist?
No one has committed an act of terror in the name of Atheism.
What is an Atheist Fundamentalist?
All atheists would be open to changing their position if presented with some credible evidence that proved the existence of a supernatural god, how can that be fundamentalist?

Mike, Perth,

Let the religious camp face it. Man created their silly idols for their own needs, and just as easily we will dismantle it again. They have served their purpose.

Mike, Runcorn, United Kingdom

Anybody who has found the plethora of atheistic books a little overwhelming need only read "Darwin's Angel" by John Cornwall to find a balance restored.Very gently and with understanding he totally rebutts their arguments.
I found the American Harris's book,"Letter to a Christian Nation to be the most impressive of the atheist works.

EDWARD SYNGE, TISBURY, UK

The popular atheist books do not heap scorn on believers as you insist. They instead offer reasoned arguments why religion is false and harmful.

"It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness."

No atheist is forcing anyone to disbelieve anything (even if that were possible). Instead we're saying, "This is why religion is wrong."

"It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics."

Clearly you haven't read any of the many books (including Dennett's) that explain how religion is a product of evolution. Of course, that doesn't make religious thought scientific, only it's existence as a natural phenomena. Surely you see the difference.


"Above all, an ideology – for atheism is an ideology – that cannot see its own scientific limitation cannot claim to be scientific."

It's no more an ideology than "Not believing in invisible pink unicorns" is an ideology.

John, Kansas City,

The question of religion, its truth value, and its suitability in the light of modern science has been marred by crude categorization and simplistic questioning.

In response to LSM, the question of the existence of a deity cannot be posed so simply. Firstly religions have to do with more than the existence of God as a purely rational proposition. This is why so many religious people respond with something along the lines of religion's being 'a way of life' and not just a belief. The fact that belief in a deity has demonstrable corollaries means that a treatment of God's existence tout court does adequately deal with existence of religion. Even a purely non-theistic anthropological aproach must accept these corollairies in a far more robust account than that offered by simple rationalistic true/false categories.

Second, religions hold revelation to be the giving of detectable evidence for the existence of God. It is for this reason that Barth saw theology as a science.

J Williams, Cambridge,

In paragraph two, the author states that "atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents – the fundamentalists ... " but that is not the case. In Dawkins' book, the moderates are referred to as being the people who create the 'environment' in which Faith is given its virtuous quality. Any religious person knows the feeling (as insightfully identified by Dawkins, and, I daresay, others) where the stronger is one's Faith, especially in the face of opposition, the more virtuous is that Faith, and the more devout its practitioner.

The Art Of Religious Tolerance is also a debatable point. While it is true that strident atheistic views are receiving some publicity, there have also been many extremist religious views (Muslim and Christian come immediately to mind) which have long received publicity.

The urgency and passion of some atheist views will likely draw attention to a discussion, which both sides think is vital, before it is too late.

John, Ballarat, Australia

OK—the athies have some new loud high priests and the Church of England seems irretrievably bent on dissolving itself but Christianity lives on elsewhere. English Catholicism has been tremendously reinvigorated by the arrival of intensely devout Central Europeans, Africans and Latin Americans, Catholic churches in London are full—yes! full—and the revived Latin mass joyfully received.

“Mainline” Protestantism might be in terminal decline but Protestantism itself is showing vigorous new roots: the Evangelical and Pentacostalist movements.

And against the gospel of nihilism the sublime message of Christianity endures (and must ultimately prevail): the timeless entered time, the sublime became mundane, perfect spirit chose to become corrupt matter. In short Jesus Christ showed us the face of God and walked among us. Rejoice!

Mary Cunningham, London, UK

Scott- your last comment is an example of why atheists pour scorn on religious believers! It is precisely because in your own country, the religious are not happy to accept that there are many many people who do not believe in God. The religious right, a huge part of the US population, are trying to rid their schools of the FACT of evolution (if you do not believe it as FACT, then please stop taking most forms of medicine which have been advanced on the premise that evolution is FACT), they are trying to introduce compulsory prayers, and are pushing rubbish like the idea that atheists are less moral than the religious (despite the fact that Sweden, which is 80% secular, has the lowest crime rate in the developed world). It is the religious who are displaying the arrogance and are asserting things without a shred of evidence. And it is your own insecurity which causes you to take offense so readily over a BOOK? If you disagree, argue back, dont go on and on about the anger of athiests!

Joe, Belfast!,

The Existence of god(s) cannot be proved either way. Arguing tirelessly about it has occurred for years. Militant atheists that openly admit ridicule seem to take umbridge more with religious institutions than anything else.

Some criticisms of religion as a catalyst for hate and conflict are well founded. But religion has been the basis for many humanitarian movements and compassionate organisations. Religions, among many other things, have added vastly to culture and society in the past and continue to do so. They're not all doom and gloom.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that 'ridicule' of others' views is rather a vicious approach to take. And a 'they started it' or 'they're just as bad' approach is not very productive either.

Let's not replace one religion with the doctrine of Atheism. From a pragmatic point of view respect for the rights and views of others should not be forgotten.

Debate and discuss by all means but don't attack- that's just plain unfair.

Adam, Manchester, uk

Atheism is a religion of non-belief. It is a faith since it is not provable, despite claims to the contrary. Atheism's focus is the negative bias on God. Atheism as an "ism" is a belief system that requires acceptance of unprovable tenets or articles of atheist faith. All religions and atheism are similitudes, they vary only in the specifics of what they take on faith.

Adra Mandoni, Honolulu, Hawaii

No one hates believers. Simply put, the folks who believe stories that have been discovered as myths for hundreds of years are just out of touch.

The logic behind basic Chrisitanity simply is not factual. Your arguments are silly.

Think for yourself, if possible.

Dwight Ricker, Chevy Chase, MD

"How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?"

How indeed?

Faith in general? Some faith in particular? You have forgotten to say.

Faith as a general "method"? Simple logic seems enough to shoot this one down, since it has already led people to n widely different and mutually inconsistent results, of which at least n – 1 are surely false. So faith in general looks indefensible, al least as a source of truth.

Thinking then of some faith in particular (which, surprise surprise, might be yours)? Yet you fail to give its details, let alone any reason why it should be better than all the others, which you must agree are false.

So apparently you don’t believe in your own faith either. And in fact you conclude: " Faith … is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential". Anything but even probable truth, it seems.

My conclusion is that you are in fact an atheist yourself. All you need is just to realize and acccept this very healthy fact.

Mario Ferretti, l'Aquila, Italy

"It is all very well for atheists to proclaim religion is a fairy-story when they are fit and well. On numerous occasions people who have been avowed atheists for most of their lives call to God at a time of great peril or when they believe they are to die. Strange isn't it?"

And an animal will chew off it's leg to escape a trap. You've done nothing but show that animals (the human animal included) do strange things under duress.

Godiva, Jahanam, Israel

"The atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents", you say. But is that really true? Just consider St Augustine or St Thomas of Aquino. Would you list them among the "most extremist exponents" of Christianity – in their own times or even today? Yet they both strongly advocated violence against heretics, apostates and infidels, on strictly theological grounds, and as a bishop Augustine ruthlessly practiced what he said. The Holy Inquisition was thus no popish innovation. Moreover, its theological principles have in fact never been denounced by any important Christian authority ever since. Historically our churches have been forced into respect of basic human rights only by the (often armed) pressure of secular society. Should that pressure relent, no one can tell how far we would fall back into the dark ages of Augustine and Thomas. Religious organizations rooted in such traditions and doctrines might reasonably be seen as potential threats even today.

Mario Ferretti, l'Aquila, Italy

From Vicki Thorne, Plano, USA

"I know from history what good has come from various religions"

Kind of irrelevant, Vicki. If I find some good that came from a person in history who thought the world was flat, does it make the world flat ? No, the world was flat/not flat regardless of the good/bad done by the person holding that view.

God(s) exist or don't, but that's totally divorced from religion which is entirely Earth based.

God(s) are not more likely to exist when religious people do good acts/aetheists do bad acts, or less likely to exist when religious people do bad acts/aetheists do good acts.

If believing in something for which there is more evidence than for fairies at the bottom of the garden is what it takes for people to get through life, OK - but accept it has no relevance to people who can get by without it. It's isn't any kind of "truth".

Try reading the Life of Pi - central message - it's not true - but life would be more colourful it it was.

Clive, Epsom, England

Why should atheists assume they know what's best for the rest of us - Vicki Thorne, Plano, USA

Boot is on the other foot Vicki? For the last 2000 years religion has assumed just that.

Your refences to Stalin and (I think) Pol Pot is misconcieved and disingenuous. They did not commit atocities in the name of atheism. Furthermore, if Hitler was athiest, which evidence does not support, do you not consider it very odd that the SS were required to wear buckles on their belts with the slogan Gott Mit Uns? (look it up). I perfectly understand why christians would not want to associate with him.

There is not enough space on this to list the atrocities that have been, and still are being, committed in the name of religion. Hardly surprising when the old testament has a crime against humanity on every other page.

Finally, by asking what athiests have contributed to mankind shows how ignorant you are on the subject. That Vicky is a very arrogant posture to take!

Richard, Jersey, CI,

PH from Japan asks:
"why don't people living in the tropics have silver, reflective skin,"
Well, they do have black skin which filters out UV.
"or eskimos natural fur?"
It seem likely invention of clothes was earlier than the migration of humans to a cold climate, which in any case only happened a matter of tens of thousands of years ago.
"And we are supposed to believe that a fish crawled out onto the beach, choked, but his/her co-fish persevered until they became able to live on land."
Not exactly, we're supposed to believe in intermediate phases living in shallow water, for which mud-skippers are a model.
"Evolutionary psychology is even more absurd."
I completely agree with this point, and find it highly embarrassing when I see any of my fellow atheists reach for evolutionary psychology (rather than the ability of individual humans to think for themselves) to counter arguments for God.

_Felix, Nottingham,

Sure, religion evolves. It evolves, through ridicule, out of being religion. The problem with "a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other’s views" is that is has no effect whatsoever on the believers, and just encourages them, because they are dogmatic and looking for excuses to not have to analyse their belief. Belief in God is just like belief in a leprechaun and deserves exactly the same level of respect, namely none; but we traditionally treat religion differently and give it respect for no good reason (unless you count various forms of fear and social pressure).

_Felix, Nottingham,

Prove there is a God - prove there is no God. Why should atheists assume they know what's best for the rest of us - as judgemental in their own way as any fundamentalist I've listened to? And if Hitchens doesn't actually hate the religious, he certainly considers them delusional or stupid, a very arrogant posture to take when he has no more proof of his beliefs than anyone else. It is all faith - that there is or is not a God - and obviously atheists and religious alike have contributed their share to the misery in the world. (I think Hitler, Stalin, and don't forget the great atheist regimes in Asia, may be ahead on sheer numbers of humans killed and enslaved). A better question to me is, what good for mankind have atheists and religeous done? I know from history what good has come from various religions - tell me of the atheists, what have they done for mankind?

Vicki Thorne, Plano, USA

Why do so many so-called "aetheists" direct so much hate and belittlement toward the religious? - Scott, Houston, Texas, USA

Hate is the wrong word Scott. Belittlement perhaps, ridicule yes. The reason for it is the constant unsupported dogmatic assertions that, if we seek YOUR god, our lives will improve. I don't hate you in the slightest, I just consider it wrong to let such nonsense go unchallenged.

I appreciate you would rather the athiests did not put forward an alternative viewpoint but hey, that's tough. We do so now because we can without the fear of being burned at the stake.

Richard, Jersey, CI,

>>Why do so many so-called "aetheists" direct so much hate and belittlement toward the religious? It seems to me that if they were so confident in their beliefs, they should be happy and not care if other people choose to be religious.<<

Exactly right. Why should atheists care if the religious try to force their beliefs down the throats of their kids at school by bringing back school prayer and making them pledge allegiance to a nation that is "under God"? Why should atheists care that the religious fly planes into buildings? Why should atheists care that the religious want their creation myths taught in biology classes alongside evolution? Or that the religious twice elected the worst president in US history just because his favorite political philosopher was Christ? And why care that US foreign policy has blindly supported every Israeli policy to it's own detriment because supporting Israel will hasten the apocalypse and the return of Christ? What possible reason can atheists care?

George Stevens, San Antonio, Texas

Why do so many so-called "aetheists" direct so much hate and belittlement toward the religious? It seems to me that if they were so confident in their beliefs, they should be happy and not care if other people choose to be religious. Instead, their irrational hatred reveals nothing more than their own insecurities about the belief system they have adopted.

Scott, Houston, Texas, USA

The religious apologists need to stop obscuring the debate with (long since answered) typical "you're as bad as us" arguments, and face up to the elephant in the living room.

Does god exist? This is a scientific question with a true or false answer. If god does exist then there should be evidence available to prove this fact, if not then you cannot claim to speak for any supernatural being if it has made itself undetectable - either because you speak of that which you cannot know, or (the more simpler and probable) it is not true that any such god exists.

Everything else is academic. Arguments such as "we need religion", "where do we get our morals from", "Stalin, Hitler, Mao..." etc etc offer nothing except show that your position is weak.

LSM, Sydney, Aus

Please kindly go through Indian Literature on God, or read Bhagwath Geetha. and also few books on India spirituality, some of your doubts about god the almighty may vanish. Whether it is atheist or believer one thing is sure that everybody accepts that there is some strange phenomenon called super power. Those people who are interested in material aspects do not believe in god mostly. Their goals are only to have more and more all the material comforts. It is also well known that nobody can take his/her's materials along with them when they expire, all the materials are to be left behind even the body can not be taken along with them. Only the power that runs the body goes to somewhere.

NM Sitabheemeswar, Trivandrum, Kerals, India

In response to PH 's intelligent argument "And we are supposed to believe that a fish crawled out onto the beach, choked, but his/her co-fish persevered until they became able to live on land. Ridiculous". Ever heard of a Frog my Friend.

Rob, Limerick, Ireland

For 1000 years humans lived in the dark ages, not permitted to think, read or learn. If you questioned, you were tortured and murdered by the church - often viciously. I fear a return to a rule by the church. They have shown their hand once; don't let there be a second time.

brett, Sydney, Australia

Wait Hitler wasnt a catholic? Could have sworn he attended church and even spoke about god in his most famous speech. Same goes for Stalin.

John, orlando

Sorry John I think youre confusing Hitler with Tony Blair.

Happy Xmas

Anthony, London,

"As far as I know no atheist, no matter how militant, has ever killed anyone because of their religious views."

Hitler, anyone?

Anyway, I am an atheist, and while I find it strange how anyone can believe in a 2000 year old folk tale (as far as I see it anyway) as being the dominant force in life, I would not stop anyone expressing their views or be so rude as Richard Dawkins is about said views. I feel one needs to think about what we are doing whilst we are here, (surely if there is no afterlife, it makes it more imperitive to make this life as good as possible for everyone!) and forge ones own philosophy to life. One must not forget the important messages left in the bible for us; principally to be good to fellows and treat them as oneself would like to be treated. For all of it's flaws, religion has helped millions of people to lead happy good lives, and in the end, is that not what counts?

N. English, Birmingham,

As far as I know no atheist, no matter how militant, has ever killed anyone because of their religious views. Religious believers, on the other hand, kill and maim other people (and themselves) pretty much every day. See http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Outrage+scoreboard for a short incomplete summary of some recent outrages -- not fifty years ago like those of Stalin but today. And tomorrow. And every day until people learn to make rational decisions rather than relying on their own delusions about their Invisible Friends.

Jon Jermey, Blaxland NSW, Australia

FAO David Kelly of Cape Town:
At the end of your rambling message you say of scientists: "Let them start with making the simplest form [of life] together with the necessary DNA and RNA . Then we will believe we don't need a creator."

Well I hope you are true to your word because science is just about there. As reported only last week,'Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome -- a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce.'

Go ahead David, keep reminding us of what you don't think science can tell us in 2007. But have you ever flown on a plane, been treated in hospital, recovered from illness after taking pharmaceuticals or been to the cinema? Because if you have enjoyed or benefited from all or any of those things then you, sir, are a hypocrite.

Steve C, Didcot, Oxfordshire

PH from Japan:
You are an uneducated straw-man builder. Your questions have scientific answers. You could learn about them (remember, that's what God tells you to do in the Bible) or choose to remain ignorant and lazy, compensating your fear of hearing answers that don't fit your narrowminded ideology by continuing to cowardly spew falsehoods from anonymity.

Felix Hoefert, Berlin, Germany

There's a lot of sound and fury going on here.

I think it's time for you chaps to call in Roger Scruton to write an illuminating article for your readers. He's got a good chapter on Enlightenment and this whole question on man and God in his "Modern Culture."

Christopher Chantrill, Seattle, USA

James, I seriously doubt that you are an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who is supposed to be sceptical of all propositions put forward for or against religion. Unfortunately you appear to unquestioningly accept the dogma of the Christian faith and not question the truth of their claims. That my friend is theism, not agnosticism.

Oh, and it doesn't seem that you have read a single word of the books you're criticizing. Dawkins have said many times that although he thinks that non beneficial altruism is a misfiring, it is fortunate that the misfiring did happened.

Jan, London,

I would have put Mao above Hitler as a monster of the 20th century - he killed more people. All three (Stalin, Mao, Hitler) were driven by religion-like ideology, not rationality, so it's a non-sequitur to blame religious scepticism for their monstrosity.

Rob Davidson, Brisbane, Australia

Atheism is dogmatic. I don't like dogma. Agnosticism is healthier: Look, Ma, no crutches!

Antonio Carvalho, Henley-on-Thames, England

Malcolm McClean,

When you say: “often pure stupidity and incisive insights are mixed in the same text”, I take it you’re talking about the Bible.

Walk, South Lake Tahoe, USA/CA

How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?

The way it has always responded, if this article and countless others like it are any indication: With misrepresentations, sophistry, and meaningless, obscurantist religio-babble.

Simon H., Montreal, Canada

The real revolution is the fact that atheism is being discussed in positive terms, arguments in favour of atheism are being put forward and the possibility of a normal moral life without "faith" is being explained.
When I was a boy, I was atheistic - but that made me think there must be something wrong with me, since apparently everyone around me "believed in god".
I hope that today's atheism discussion will show young people that they don't have to be religious and that they should listen with critical ears to the tales told to them by professional preachers.
Maybe some day religious faith can be laughed out of existece. Then there might be hope for the future of the human race.

alan, cologne,

How should faith respond to atheists? With healing love. Those of us who are Christian need look no further than the story of Paul, persecutor of the early Christians, who had a total turnaround in his thought. What brought it about? His heartelt belligerence towards Christians was not altered through intellectual persuasion but through the prayers of those mentally turning the other cheek when they thought of him...or in the case of Stephen, faced him and said of Paul and those he was with "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" as he was murdered by them. Even after Paul's profound spiritual encounter on the road to Damascus, he still needed humble Ananias to overcome his own fears and his loathing of the persecutor to go to Paul and heal him of his physical blindness. Like Stephen and Ananias we need this healing approach to atheists of loving them as unconditionally as God does and pray their search for truth will finally lead them to find that love for themselves.

Tony Lobl, Surbiton, UK

If the theory of natural selection were true, why don't people living in the tropics have silver, reflective skin, or eskimos natural fur? And we are supposed to believe that a fish crawled out onto the beach, choked, but his/her co-fish persevered until they became able to live on land. Ridiculous.
Evolution is a religion too. The worship of the time god. Evolutionary psychology is even more absurd.

PH, Japan, Japan

Atheism is an ideology? No, it is just a lack of belief in supernatural beings. It's just as much an ideology as a-fairyism or a-SantaClausism. Atheists can be nihilists, facists, socialists, etc. They include one of the greatest sociopaths in history (Stalin) as well as the greatest philanthropists of all time (Buffet, Gates, Carnegie). Most atheists I know have adopted some flavour of humanism but it is not obligatory.

All you can say of atheists is that they have emancipated their minds from the myths of ancient people who were struggling to understand the world. If atheists are homophobic it is not because some ancient scribe told them to be. If they are against abortion it is not because they believe in 'souls' entering the foetus at conception. If they are in favour of unprovoked attacks on countries it is not because they believe they've heard messages from beings in the sky advising it. These are negative reasons and are all you will get from the 'ideology' of atheism.

Paolo, Siena,

It seems to me, an agnostic, that Richard Dawkins and his fellow evangelists do not preach real atheism but a sort of atheism-lite which they do not allow to disturb the values they inherited from the Judeo-Christian culture which programmed their consciences. If there is no God and therefore only a material world, life, including human life, is all about the material survival of the strongest and the fittest with the weakest going to the wall, and in the pursuit of that end all things are permitted. Compassion for the weak and the excluded, altruism, spiritual values and human rights, are derived from belief in the existence of a non-material, compassionate God in whose sight all persons are equal. They have no place in this struggle for survival in a Godless universe. Perhaps we should take Dawkin's "Have your cake and eat it" Atheism as seriously as Champagne Socialism or bourgeois Left Bank Moaism.

James Crawford, London, UK

Jay from London asks "Why is the Jewish faith so well represented amongst the intelligensia over the ages?"

This rational discourse into the fundamentally irrational is why we've ended up with such odd concepts as Eruv, and why we're wasting our precious resources ensuring we don't have to press buttons on Shabbos, due to the tiny fires we light and extinguish in the process.

It's the objective insanity of those who take things to extremes which precedes the downfall of the underlying belief system. I know more Jewish atheists than Jewish believers. I'd wager most self-proclaimed Christians I know are more cultural Christians than biblical literalists.

Mark, London, UK

"A claim to know what Einstein admitted was the unknowable about the existence of the universe cannot be made by anyone who is himself a human and therefore part of that universe"
EXACTLY. So when scientists don't know something they say so! We don't yet know the precise origins of the universe and we say so! But we try to find answers. Christians, by contrast, make extraordinary claims to knowledge concerning creation, "3 in 1" gods, angels, virgin births, end of times, god's peculiar sexual morals, etc., based on an amazing paucity of evidence.

Who is the arrogant, dogmatic one - the person who says they currently have no belief in supernatural beings (gods, gremlins, etc) because of a lack of evidence (but are willing to change their mind if, say, the pope starts healing amputees or gremlins are verified by scientists) or the Christian who makes amazing claims to knowledge concerning space beings for which no counter evidence at all would ever change their mind?

Nicola, Fiesole,

I am certain that there are factions out there that would like atheism to become organized,and as such,just another religion.I don't want to see that.Richard Dawkins is taking a page from the book of religion.He's using his beliefs to make money.That's his only goal.Don't read into it any more than this.

ron, toronto,

The question ought to be, "How should reasoning people withstand the onslaught of religion?"

Rick Hepner, Salt Lake City, USA

Well, if the leader writer thinks that celebrating uncertainty is worthwhile, good luck. But think what awfulness has taken advantage of such uncertainty. Now is it worth celebrating? And forget the Hitler/Mao/Stalin references. They were as much their own gods as atheists (and paid their dues to christianity when it suited them). What common beliefs do totalitarians have with Hitchens/Dawkins et al? What a dud argument.

And as for the inability to understand the religious - please! Hitchens dedicates his book to McEwan, as someone who can evoke the spiritual and numinous without religion. Dawkins shows how ridiculous it is to say you can't out the Emperor’s nudity while ignoring learned tomes on ruffled pantaloons and silken underwear.

ja, london,

The problem is wrongly formulated: the real danger is not belief in god per se, but uncritical acceptance of any dogma, secular or spiritual. In any case, most of the discussion about god makes no attempt to define the concept: are they talking of the Greek gods, the gods of Walhalla, the strictly monotheistic Jewish god (of justice), the trinitarian Christian god (of love), the deistic god, Spinoza's god...
Also, it is naive to assume that, if a doctrine proclaims itself to be 'scientific', it is necessarily so. Lysenko's officially endorsed genetics was anything but, just as the Nazis' racist dogmas were. We must accept that there are spiritual religions and secular (or 'political' - as Gentile called them) religions. Any doctrine accepted as a 'revealed truth' or as an unjustified, uncritically accepted, unchallenged, 'truth' is no more than a dogma, and a pernicious one at that, for such acceptance numbs our analytic and critical faculties. We need more debunking!

George Ross, London, United Kingdom

That's the poorest article I've ever read on this subject. Full of logical fallacies. Someone doesn't understand the term atheist, may I suggest that you ask Santa for a dictionary this Christmas.

Militant atheism? What on earth is that? A vocal atheist? Go to dawkins.net and watch the Four Horsemen 2 hour video if you want to get a proper understanding of where most of us atheists are coming from.

You won't find any militancy of fundamentalism.

Russ, Reading, UK

The way forward for theists is education.

In the 1960s the leading philosophical thought was atheism, principally because many of the brightest philosophers were atheists. Thishas shifted now and many theistic philosophers and scientists hold seats at many of the world's best universities.

Theism has in the academic circles shaken off its uncritical theology and this needs to be filtered through to the ley man, evangelicals need not fear, they simply need to get upto speed on their philosophy, science and theology.

Atheistic arguments are not as strong and scientifically well supported as the public would seem to think but it will take time and education for the theistic counter-perspective to make it on the the public scene - there has grown an anti-theism within our institutions the theistic arguments, so consequently it will take time.

Susan, Barry, S Wales - Does your piece of writing not sound divisive and discriminatory?

Nathan, Inverness, UK

So the atheists want to "rely on the facts". Other than knowing what the effects are, they don't know what gravity is, what the greater or lesser nucleic forces are or what electro magnetism is. Nor do they know what matter is or what the universe is composed of. They don't know what light is and they cannot reconcile the observable world with the quantum world. Mostly they haven't a clue how life was formed and their attempts to postulate a theory rival the flat earth sociey for stupidity. Finally, those that think life came about from the "building blocks of life" together with a flash of lightening in the primeavil swamp should be able to make it themselves. Not something as complicated as man. Let them start with making the simplest form together with the necessary DNA and RNA . Then we will believe we don't need a creator.

David Kelly, Cape Town, South Africa

It is all very well for atheists to proclaim religion is a fairy-story when they are fit and well. On numerous occasions people who have been avowed atheists for most of their lives call to God at a time of great peril or when they believe they are to die. Strange isn't it?

Arthur Lincoln, Lincoln,

"Love came down at Christmas!" Let mankind hope and trust that when the celelbration of the birth of Jesus Christ is upon us again tomorrow, peace and the desire for human compatability and friendship touches all souls.

Stephen Gemmell, Kilmarnock, Scotland

"Believers, Dawkins asserts, are “malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed”"

He has asserted nothing of the sort. The words used above were partially taken from the following, which Professor Dawkins did state:

"I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent."

Spot the difference? Curiously, the exact same falsehood appeared in The Guardian 30 August in an article by John Cornwell. Lazy journalism, anyone?

The author is either incompetent or a liar. Given the content of the remainder of this piece, I suspect some of the former and a lot of the latter. No wonder the article is published unsigned.

Molcom Ansell, London,

It is a cheap shot bringing up Hitler and Stalin when taking about Atheists, as if that was why they did what they did. I think it would be more honest to acknowledge that the murder of 6 million Jews was at least in some part the responsibility of Christians who persecuted the Jews for many centuries, on the grounds that they "killed our Lord".

I also wish your editorial had at least recognised that an atheist is just someone who does not believe in any of the supernatural entities on offer and is more likely to allow people to worship as they wish.

Barry Winchurch, Derby,

God and Man

To quote from Monday’s comment, Christmas Eve no less, “It has been a good year for atheists. Richard Dawkin’s book The God delusion has sold more than a million copies.

Well perhaps that’s a good year, one good year but what about the story of Christmas which has endured 2000 and odd years, is still told and believed by millions.

The Bible remains the best selling book in the world, with the total number of Bibles sold or given away each day estimated at 168,000 (Wycliffe International). That’s right 168 00 each day, do the arithmetic, it doesn’t take many days to out sell Mr Dawkin’s own leap of faith version.

My Christian life is all about faith, faith in a baby yes born 2000 years ago, but much more than that, it’s about faith in a man who walked this earth on his two feet and loved, like no one had done or has done again. I’m a cynical cop with over 20 years dealing with death and destruction in so many lives. Ask me the question, does God exist, absolutely, the evidence is there, Jesus my saviour did walk on this earth, he did perform many miracles, he did love man like no other, why because he was man in human form and God.

Yes the argument between atheism and faith has become political but we shouldn’t be worried, it was political in the days of Jesus, he was put to death by the political establishment of the day and look where that led, his resurrection and life that is still read about and talked about today.

Let’s not get hung up arguing about “religion”, instead ask the question why we buy bibles, why we pray, why we go to church and where we would be without the story and reality of Jesus and what he means to millions.

If we as a human race were able to display 0.00000000000000001 of the humanity, humility and love that Jesus did, this world would be a far better place.

Yes atheism maybe had a good year, I wonder if they’ll be celebrating in 2000 years.

Michael Moir, Falkirk,

As Mr Blair proved it during his Presidency, ‘all that it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing’. There is more danger in men not promoting their faith than ever there is in men being too cowardly to speak of it for fear of ballot box retribution. The Labour Party has attempted to become a, alternative faith, attributing good works to pounds and dollars whereas the real fountainheads of truth, wisdom and individual humanity have been left un-proclaimed, if good comes about it will be through the state! Even the poorest he can have his life lifted by faith as Islam is proving every day. In the West, Christian religion is seen as an area of policy (even by Dr. Williams) rather than being an alternative army, a tireless social worker and a unifier - and all this for free. (Timely that at Christmas, that there is an easy, non-rhetorical, way of accessing this divinity; watch It's a Wonderful Life (Frank Capra(corn)). We are more than the sum of our personal concerns.

Malcolm Turner, Alsager, England

There is little doubt that 'religion', on the whole, deserves every ounce of the opprobium that Dawkins, Hitchens and others heap upon it. Ultimately, however, for all of their bluster, the fundamental truth of the Gospel - the historical record of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, his birth, death and resurrection - stands firm. Unless the atheists can come up with a compelling account for who Christ was (to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, whether he was a liar, a lunatic or the Lord), then all of their arguments come to nothing. Their attempts at dealing with this question so far have been unimpressive to say the least.

Dr Stephen Morris, Shrewsbury, UK

Dr. Irene Lancaster is a classic example of why the atheists find it so easy to attack the religionists. Some religionists are too busy attacking other faiths and so do the atheists' job themselves.

Anyway, in response to her comments, Jesus was indeed a Palestinian Jew but the language of his day was Aramaic, and not Hebrew. Hebrew is about as relevant as Latin. It is a dead langugage only artificially resurrected in 1948 as modern Hebrew in order to cement the similarly artificial construct of Israel.

If one wants to engage with co-religionists in common battle with atheists, then it is best to learn their language which are at least living languages and widely spoken. The common language of the Middle East is Arabic, widely spoken by the many Christians there as well as Muslims.

Bilal Patel, London, UK,

The author of this comment is guilty of many of the offences which Dawkins charges believers with throughout The God Delusion. In particular, this theist appears to have grabbed at quotes from the book to incite hatred of Dawkins, claiming he describes all theists "vicious, sadomasochictis and repellent". I have rarely seen such quantity of ellipses in a single piece of prose.

But I doubt the author has bothered to properly read Dawkins' masterpiece properly. In particular, by attempting to use the erroneous examples of Hitler and Stalin as proof of the evils of science. Those who read efficaciously know that Dawkins along with many others have destroyed such examples time and time again, as repeated by BlackSun.

Unlike most Chrisitians I have read the Bible cover to cover and am deeply disturbed by the thought that The Times feels it necessary to describe it as "unsayable" that Nick Clegg admits to being an atheist, Already I have more respect for the man than any other leader.

Luke Bowyer, Woore, Cheshire

I seem to recall that Hitler exploited religion to back his so-called scientific ideas and enough people bought it to plunge the world into war, humanity has always proven it would sooner invest time and money, and lifes, into a myth than reality.

It’s such a shame to see people aggressively defending themselves from an enemy that quite frankly isn’t there. Nobody has ever declared a war in defense of a lack of faith, aggressive atheism is just as big a myth as god.

Bruce, Toronto, Canada

Why all this name calling? Why is one described as a militant atheist if one is an atheist? Why is it an ideology simply not to believe in something? Why is atheism totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness? Why allow the believers in any old religion, however barmy, to have an understanding of spirituality but deny that to atheists? It is the immortal soul that we do not believe in - not the human spirit.

It is the same world that we all experience, through different mental frameworks - whether theist or atheist. We atheists do have faith - in the existence of our planet circling its sun, or star - one of about a hundred thousand million stars in our galaxy - which in turn is one of about a hundred thousand million galaxies in our universe. What we do not have faith in is a creator god of all that which is concerned with our collective and individual lives on this cosmically insignificant planet - other than, of course, as a wishful-thinking nonsensical idea.

Dane Clouston, Oxford, UK

We are witnessing the last kickings of a disgusting 'belief' system. All the Abrahamic faiths have spent most of their time torturing and burning unbelievers, denying all scientific truths, and trying their damndest to stop education, books, and intellectual freedom. I shall be delighted when the last of the dwindling congregations closes its smug and arrogant doors. Archbishops, mullahs, and their flock will become as mythical as fairies.

Pete Kettle, Hailsham, UK

Just to extend the totalitarianism point made by BlackSun. Who are the people who willingly embrace living under a celestial dictatorship? Who go to weekly meetings praising how wondrous the leader is? Who put pictures of the great leader on their wall? Who have as their number 1 moral rule to worship the great leader? Who believe they are under 24/7 monitoring? Who believe they get punished for thought crimes? Who splutter out spine-chilling apologetics for the numerous genocides that the great leader has committed in the past (according to their own documents). Who has the eternal torture camp for those who do not willingly submit to the great leader? Christianity seems to have a very totalitarian prescription for human happiness.
Atheists do not believe in supernatural sky entities. That’s it. Some may like dictatorships but the names you mention all prefer freedom, democracy and morality based on human suffering and happiness and not on what an earthly or celestial leader tell us.

Martin, Milan, Italy

The editorial says: "Believers, Dawkins asserts, are “malevolent... vicious, ...". I think this is a misquotation of Dawkins. He never used these adjectives about honest (but misguided) believers, but mainly about the "American Taleban" (i.e. the militant Evangelists) and other fundamentalist believers. You are not the first to misquote Dawkins, and I guess will not be the last. However, I hope you will be aware one day that this is a kind of "target setting" and it can lead to very serious consequences.

Mehmet Ayhan, London, U.K.

If a person wishes to know if God lives in the Heavens, all he or she has to do is to kneel in prayer. Ask with an open heart and mind that question, The Holy Spirit will reveal to them that truth, God lives and Jesus Christ is our Saviour and Redeemer
The Holy Ghost is the Revelator and the link between this earth and the heavens.

Bernard Fahey, Wakefield,

Militant atheism? Totalitarianism? Atheism an ideology? What nonsense! But then how deeply satisfying to see the religious struggling to defend the indefensible. Perhaps 2007 really will mark a new start.

Bob Brainin, London,

Atheism is an ideology is it, in that case not believing in the tooth fairy or pixies must be an ideology also.

Mark, Cambridge, U.K

It's been a good year for atheists, yes, but next going to be even better.

Stuart, Coventry, UK

Totalitarianism? Militant atheism? Atheism an ideology? What nonsense! But then how deeply satisfying to see the religious struggling to defend the indefensible. Perhaps 2007 really will mark a new start.

Bob , London, UK

Wisdom distinguishes between tenable positions and arguments from ignorance or prejudice.
Atheists offer both, much more noticeably than people who defend other philosophical positions; often pure stupidity and incisive insights are mixed in the same text.

So the only sensible response to Dawkin's book is to write one back.

(author of The Confutation of Dawkin's God Delusion)

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

For many centuries, if you were brave enough to declare that you did not believe in any gods, you were at risk of being persecuted, tortured or burnt at the stake. Since the power of the pious has been broken, there has been a period of quiet deference to the religious as long as they kept their beliefs to themselves. More recently, the religious have been threatening to re-take their former power, particularly in the USA.

So, when a few books appear on the shelves which hold the beliefs of the religious to gentle critical analysis, a very few titles compared to the hundreds of thousands of religious themes, there is an outcry from the pious who condemn the authors as "militant" and "fundamentalists". I wonder why the religious don't like their beliefs being held up to scrutiny?

Stewart Ware, London, UK

Wait Hitler wasnt a catholic? Could have sworn he attended church and even spoke about god in his most famous speech. Same goes for Stalin.

John, orlando,

Well said Dr Lancaster, absolutely correct. Most of today's modern biblical analysis is based on mistranslation and misunderstanding of the original texts. Why is the Jewish faith so well represented amongst the intelligensia over the ages. Because we study, discourse, argue and enjoy using our brains. We need no false intermediaries when we have discussions with the Almighty. Pity others don't go direct to the source!!

Jay, London,

If using reason based on evidence to arrive at conslusions is an idealogy then aethism (or just being realistic) is an ideology. Religeous faith on the other hand is "pie in the sky" wishful thinking. I would rather trust in the facts.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

All religions promote division and actively discriminate against those who don’t match up to their ideal. They should be attacked forcefully and consistently. I don’t want to live in a world where women and gays are slagged off as sinners. It’s people who make the religion not the religion who makes the people.

Susan, Barry, S Wales

You hint that the spiritual dimension goes beyond "mere awe at the sublime" and I suppose that you are talking about supernatural. Why would any "sentient atheist " need to admit to this? It is a complete non-sequiter. Futhermore claiming that atheism cannot claim to be scientific is a preposterous dig coming from any religious viewpoint. I'm weary of religious apologists attacking the mad, militant, dogamtic athiests as soulless robots. The religious moderate is forced to admit his religious tolerance only goes as far as those in the fatih community. In America agnostics and atheists are vilified and persecuted. That is why we welcome Richard Dawkins efforts. Oh, and by the way, if you don't think I understand the religious experience you are deluding yourself. It has taken me fifty years to get here.

Tom Clark, Scappoose , OR

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were first and foremost totalitarians, which you correctly point out is the greatest danger to society at all levels. They established what amounted to "state religions" complete with scripture, (Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto, Little Red Book) large portraits of themselves as 'gods' and requirements of unquestioned obedience. Totalitarian dictatorships resembled theocracies more than any kind of product of scientific rationalism. Because they relied on unchecked authority they cannot be seen as the result of the cautious skepticism of science.

Atheism can only be defined by what it is not. It simply means "without gods." Other than that, it is as diverse as humanity itself, having no other defining characteristic. That hardly fits the narrow definition of "ideology."

Beware of religious attempts to shift the burden of proof. It is those who claim to see the invisible and know the unknowable who are dangerous, and should invite our skepticism and ridicule.

BlackSun, Los Angeles, CA

The FACT is that "God" does exist in the minds of billions of believers, which puts a lie to the assertions of the atheists. The existence of God in any supernatural sense as defined by the major religions in reality can be neither proved or disproved by any rational means. However humans must of necessity deal with the affects of faith in God as it does manifest consequences in the human behavior that results from belief in the specific tenets of religious dogma and the results are very real indeed.

Sadly there is little between this bipolar enmity between religion and atheism. Humans have been spiritual beings according to a vast accumulation of evidence history and science have established and that has been true, long before and independent of the existence of any civilized religious institution or concept of a supernatural monotheistic God. The kind of spiritual human dimension I refer to is a part of the natural world we are a part of but which modern man has become alienated.

David B. Brooks, Lompoc, California, USA

Thanks London Times and Merry Christmas
God is not religious. God is God. Presently known as Jesus of Nazareth, He walked the earth as a man among men. He has made possible not a new way of living but rather a new kind of BEING. Totally Revolutionary!

Warsteiner, Vernon, Alabama U.S.A.

Dr Lancaster says (comments) "The classic Jewish approach to religion is to leave 'faith' and 'literal belief' out of it". But she writes from Haifa in Israel. It was the faith and literal belief about the promised land that was the force behind Zionism that has ended with Jews taking over 80% of Palestine, annexing Jerusalem and installing 500 000 illegal settlers in the West Bank. They were able to do this since they have held the Palestinians down with a 40 year occupation. So much for just "wresting with the text". This is the main cause of antisemitism and it is exacerbated by the general support for Israel's illegal activities by the Diaspora.

William Garrett, Harrow,

The classic Jewish approach to religion is to leave 'faith' and 'literal belief' out of it and to embark on the wonderful adventure of 'wrestling with the text', in Hebrew naturally.

What a pity that, according to a leading Anglican Dean here in Jerusalem, biblical languages have been discarded in most British theological colleges in order to teach about Islam and Sikhism, because 'these are the types of people that most Christian priests will encounter'.

What happened to all the Christians and non-believers the average vicar used to encounter and what about the Jewish heritage of Christianity, contained in the Hebrew Bible?

This is the one root reason for the increase in antisemitism in the country, for when clerics don't have the wherewithal to defend the Jewish community, as Freud said of the Church in Austria (to paraphrase), 'we are sunk'.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA, Haifa, Israel

Atheists have begun to develop some surprisingly serious spiritual paths beyond the dogmatism of writers like Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett. See, for example, the alternative atheist spirituality of D Midbar at

http://www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com/

Angel , Washington, DC, USA