"Atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair color."

John #9

Pol pot was a Buddhist, and came out of a Buddhist monastery; Buddhists were responsible for the killing fields Hitler was not an atheist, the Nazi movement was built on the teaching of St John, and the persecution of the Jews took inspiration for the Gnostic gospel of St John. Adolf Hitler was baptized in a Catholic Church in 1889.

Mao was a Taoist. North Korea is a Buddhist country

So why don't you wake up son - most of those doing the killing in Stalin’s state were from Orthodox religious backgrounds, I have never meet anyone from eastern Europe who is not a follower one or other of the Abrahamic faiths- religion is a poison

To borrow a phrase, if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby (I have yet to meet a single aphilatelist).

And to those who say evolution is a belief in decline, which is being eroded by science, nothing could be further from the truth. If it is possible for the tenets of evolutionary biology to become even more firmly buttressed by research, then this is what is happening daily. Saying otherwise, and repeating it ad nauseum, will not diminish the reality of evolution one iota. And anyone who still maintains creationist beliefs is, well, whistling past the graveyard.

Just goes to show, though, that we don't have a monopoly on ignorance in the American South.

Abiogenesis is merely a scientific hypothesis, Atheists do not automatically subscribe to it. The letters author is being intellectually dishonest and is using false dichotomy, in an attempt to push his religious dogma onto others.

Creationist have difficulty in separating evolution from bio chemistry, but as always when you mention abiogenesis in relation to evolution you fail and expose yourself as a creationist, as it is not what scientists or atheists accept, it is what you as a creationist propose.

Anyone who believes in a talking snake, a virgin birth, the resurrection, walking on water and a place called hell is either intellectually bankrupt or a dimwitted fool

"I'm convinced that atheists (and I do have atheist friends whom I love and care for) ultimately reject God for theirs, not because he's so highly improbable, but because their god neither condemns sin, nor requires anything from them."

You know what this sounds like? "I'm convinced that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation because it is easier than being heterosexual." Comments like that don't do anyone any good and shows that the speaker is close-minded. Why even make the comment? To toot your own horn?

"Im convinced that atheists ultimately reject God for theirs, not because he's so highly improbable, but because their god neither condemns sin, nor requires anything from them"

Allow me to correct you concisely - I do not.

The utterly woeful understanding of just what the difference between science and faith is, both in these letters and the responses I guess is unsurprising given the continued diminishing resources invested in science education both at the school and tertiary levels.

I don't even know where to start, and I guess without even a most basic introductory level knowledge - how could you.

Sad indictment on our society given it is 2010.

Most people would agree that it is not possible to judge a religion - any religion - by the actions of individual members. I cannot 'prove' the wrongness of Catholic Christianity by pointing to the Catholic clergy of the 1500's, or as Ian points out the more recent abuses; neither can I 'prove' the wrongs of Protestant Christianity by pointing out the catholic deaths during Queen Elizabeth's reign (the first, not the second). Same goes for Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. We can judge an individual in the light of their (professed) beliefs but not vice versa, so can we please stop trying to win the debate by giving examples from either side.

With regard to human evolution, I note with interest that 'ape-men' invariably get front page treatment in Nat. Geo... and that the retraction of the story ('oops - it was actually two skeletons combined', 'oops - it's just a girl with rickets') two to six months later is invariably in small print hidden between the letters nobody reads.

It's not faith. It's reason. Faith denies reason. Proof denies faith - that's in the Bible, the Torah and the Koran, and that underpins the Abrahamic religions.

If proof denies faith, then to say the Dawkins relies on faith when what he wants is proof is to fail to realise that faith and proof are two mutually exclusive concepts.

Evolution has been proven, and this proof has denied faith, and will continue to deny all kinds of faith. If you don't think evolution has been proven, I suggest you start with The Blind Watchmaker and go from there.

John 15 - I claim Godwins law - I win!

And by the way Hilter was a Catholic.

None of these men killed for atheism - you might as well claim they all had moustaches therefore moustaches are evil. Now the spanish inquistion on the other hand - purely driven by religion.

Man I wish that taught evolution at school correctly - The ignorance, lies and half truths told by the religious to self justify creationism and "intellegent" design just makes me cringe. Please just read a book, knowledge is the key!