If this is what will run in their place, I apologize and would love to read more about contemporary televisions show which I never watch.

There's more to the picture than meets the eye.

But when it hits you, there's no mistaking it. It often comes to those of us who aren't even looking for it. It hits you over the head and turns your life upside down. And for a good long while belief actually makes your life more difficult and complicated, not easier. Why would you invent something that at least at first, may make you uncomfortable and unable to relate to all those round you for whom it hasn't happened?

I read these kinds of articles and books, which seem so prevalent these days, with a sense of bemusement. It's like a color-blind person going to great lengths to argue that there is no such thing as color, but that it was invented for X and Y reasons. How do you explain color to the colorblind? And how funny is a colorblind person arguing so earnestly to explain away something that is lacking within themselves. Maybe disbelievers shouldn't be called atheists, but "differently abled"?

One day, maybe in another lifetime, thinkers like Steve Paulson will "get it" and it won't be through the head at all, but through the heart, which is where all belief comes from. There is no logical argument in the world that can dissuade believers. But disbelievers will appreciate being made to feel a little more secure in their disbelief, at least for a while.

But disbelievers will appreciate being made to feel a little more secure in their disbelief, at least for a while.

I agree. Those of you who choose not to believe in Zeus will feel a little more secure . . . until he fries you with a lightening bolt for your insolence.

I was raised an atheist, culturally identified, Jew. My experience of the world continues to evolve, of course, but at the moment I'd say I identify as an atheist person of faith who is committed to Shambhala practice and still identifies culturally as a Jew. I'm not really sure what that all means to readers, but I will say that I find it really nasty to call folks "disbelievers." 'Atheist' does the trick nicely, without defining people in dismissively negative terms. 'Humanist' is also a nice term, or even something awkward and a little silly like 'evidencist.' But any term that begins with a negating prefix seems to me like rhetorical gesture of aggression, and I don't like it. Nope.

So our ability to think abstractly is neurochemical. How does that explain the rather late development of religion compared to the biological development of the human species. If we are, about 40,000 years old then how is it that ethical monotheism is about 4,000 old? What were doing with that wiring 90% of the time? Well we were developing different religions. But then how does that explain the rather trial and error nature of those dead beliefs?

Atheist is a word that begins with a negating prefix. Just so you know...

Wolpert did not address why there is such an unmeasurable difference between the intellectual capacity of a single human being and that of the nearest ape. You could put 10 monkeys in a room with 10 typewriters for 5 years and there would not be a single complete sentence produced. So after millions of years of evolutionary effects on both species, we have one specie (us) that can launch like specie into space and return them safely and our nearest intellectual competitor can barely speak (ironically, we first tossed apes into space before we followed them).

I am not covering for the creationist crowd because evolution is the scientific reality, but, to claim that religion and its orgins are a product of evolution only and all other considerations are scientifically invalid is not taking full advantage of one's intellectual capabilities.

But when it hits you, there's no mistaking it. It often comes to those of us who aren't even looking for it. It hits you over the head and turns your life upside down.

Are we talking about religion here or sexual infatuation?

The problem with this is that clearly it doesn't come to everyone, or a lot more of us would be believers. If God picks and chooses who gets the guaranteed life-changing experience via cosmic dartboard, I'm just as happy I've been spared so far.

Why would you invent something that at least at first, may make you uncomfortable and unable to relate to all those round you for whom it hasn't happened?

Newsflash to Anonymous: the majority of people are believers. I know that believers see themselves as a besieged minority, but it's simply not the case. The vast majority of people believe in some supernatural being(s).

And as for why would one invent something like a belief, it's for comfort, isn't it? A purposeless, undriven world is a cold and lonely place, makes you feel very small and insignificant -- but a belief in God creates purpose, meaning, and drive, so that's precisely why somebody would have belief.

Belief's the easy, comforting path, compared to atheism, no matter how many times it's portrayed the other way around. Suffering for a faith is especially exalted, while suffering for atheism sounds more like hubris, foolishness, and tragedy. Why suffer for nothing? But more importantly (on this ever-smaller world), the atheist asks: why inflict suffering for nothing?

While there are plenty of torturers and oppressors who did so for a belief, there are none who did it for a disbelief! That's why atheists are generally nice people, not "despite" their disbelief, but because of it.

"Live and let live" is an atheistic virtue, compared to "kill or be killed," the mantra of the fanatic. The first nuclear/biological terrorist will be a true believer, not an atheist.

Love is much closer. A love both felt for, and received from, the divine. If you think about people you love or have loved, how could you ever describe that love to others? You can't. You can tell them all about the positive attributes of that person, but that's not really where love comes from. Love, in all its forms, is a mystery.