phld1976: "If you have a soul, then you have an afterlife. Maybe afterlife is a red herring for other mammals who can not reflect on their existence, but we can, and thus we have both a soul and an afterlife. However, I am already bored trying to convince you."

Wow. Were you on the high school debating team when you came up with that gambit? I can find no logic that can counter such an indisputable argument.

Have fun in your afterlife. In the meantime, I'm trying to appreciate what's going on now during 'life' itself. A simple, guilt-free, introspective, questioning, fulfilling life. No ah-hah moments needed, and no diapers required for any spirituality I might endeavor to undertake.

"Then there are other creation stories in the Bible that show Yahweh like a Middle Eastern god killing a sea monster to create the world."

Where, pray tell, are these creation stories found in the Bible? I don't recall ever coming across any stories in the Bible where God is killing a sea creature to create the world.

I have to say that while interesting, Ms. Armstrong's opinions add to the "blah blah blah" discussions about religious matters. I don't see what makes her opinions any more valid than those held by Christians who take the Bible literally. It would be nice to see that point of view in Salon from someone who is not of the Christian Right.

Unfortunately, it seems that persons such as Ms. Armstrong are upheld as enlightened since they pooh pooh the Bible as a fantasy, while those who take their religious beliefs seriously are condemned as "fundamentalists" or "extremists". The middle ground, which I am pretty certain is shared by most American Christians, is simply not reflected by such articles.

The onus is on believers to prove there is a god, not on me to prove there isn’t one. Religion is the only topic I can think of that requires you to justify your non-belief.

It looks to me like Ms. Armstrong is belief-shopping and taking us along for the ride; nun, non-believer, now she is saying all religions are one, I can’t wait to see what her next book will espouse. I think her technique of reading spiritual works and ignoring the parts she doesn’t like is sweet, and irrelevant.

Her obsession with eliminating the ego is so very 1960’s rock musician. Spending your life trying to dissolve into the mystical oneness is a silly waste of a life. Be what you are now. Be unique, be clever at cocktail parties. You will dissolve, in good time, no effort required.

Stalin and Mao may have not been religious but under both, allegiance to the Party and its program was used like a religious dogma. They were secular but they were not using reason and rationality.

First, a matter of definition. 'Spirituality' does not equal 'Religion'. I think a lot of people here confuse the distinction and thus argue in incorrect generalizations. This is a common problem with discussions about 'religion', and some people who may actually share the same views can at times get confounded on semantics.

Second, I think there are many self-described 'atheists' who disdain religion (especially hierarchical organized religions) but are not closed to human spirituality. Since human spirituality does not necessarily rely on 'theism', there is no conflict of thought here. Unfortunately it takes a lot of preamble to sort these terms out in advance, and people's eagerness to jump into the discussion tends to shortcut the establishment of a rigorous foundation for argument. I'm as guilty here as anyone in this regard.

Finally, atheists and most moderates agree that fundamentalists cause a lot of friction in these issues. I contend, however, that all sides should take responsibility for their fundamentalists if they are to earn a place in the discussion. In the case here of atheist or humanist 'fundamentalists' (such as, arguably, Dawkins), if such a fundamentalist caused real harm to others I would expect atheists to hold them accountable or repudiate their actions to the extent of the harm done. Likewise, if a religious fundamentalist causes real harm, I expect that others sharing his/her essential belief should step in and take responsibility for such actions, and question which aspects of their belief led to the behavior. To simply offer excuses and not address the root cause is to tacitly agree with them.

This is of course the essence of Sam Harris' book, "The End Of Faith". It is also the cause of most of the atheist's anguish, as the underlying religious beliefs that enable such harmful behavior go on unchecked in rational discourse. Religious moderates must be willing to reign in their own extremists (atheists certainly aren't going to do it for them) or else they have no credibility to defend the rest of their faith, cherry-picked or otherwise.

Chad quoted Zippy: "It’s pretty hilarious to see a bunch of diehard atheists get all jittery and pissy and whiney and wailey just at the mention of the word God…Re-read the article again, this time with an open heart, if not an open mind.”

Then Chad condescended: "The heart is a muscle that pumps blood through the body and does not possess the faculties for reason or thought."

So I'll condescend, too: "A metaphor is a figure of speech by which a vehicle stands for an abstraction."

Gosh, Literalist Chad--it would suck to be near you around Valentine's Day.

Yes, I agree with Armstrong that the afterlife is a "red herring", but it can't be proven either. I also agree that Westerners, as well as other cultures DO "cling to infantile ideas of [god]" (I refuse to capitalize it since , as an agnostic, I don't regard it, a supreme being, as existing, much less having a name or personality).

Most humans NEED to feel protected, watched over and given a "Reason" why awful things happen to them. We're only 5 million years from the African savannah...not long enough to re-wire our fearful, hominid brains.

Hating religion is NOT pathological (unless you start killing religious people, for instance), but basically a way of lashing out at the fact that so many "religious" people, such as fundamentalists, keep on trying to cram their views down others' throats. That goes for Christians AND Muslims (rarely for Jews...they're not big on evangelizing or converting others).

Frankly, I'm amazed that people still keep debating and even warring over SOMETHING THAT CAN NOT EVER BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN! It's absurd! Yes...here I am, writing about it, but only to try to get even a few people to STOP it already!!!