Bravus: The definition of 'atheism' is 'absence of religion'. (A-theism, right?) One could just as well create the word 'aplogsism', if there were such a thing as a 'plogsist'. But there aren't, so we don't need the word aplogsism in our language. One doesn't need to subsume an opponent's position to negate something that doesn't exist.

If there were no humans on this planet (and there's a greater than zero chance that this may be the case in the future) does religion - theism - still exist? If so, what supports it? Other animals? Inorganic material? Do any of these candidates get to weigh in on the current discussions about faith, religion, belief, etc.? If so, I certainly haven't heard their representation invited to the party.

The Moon is generally acknowledged to be lifeless. Is there religion on the Moon? Is there religion inside a black hole? If there turns out to be other life forms in our known universe, are they religious? Which form of OUR gods do they embrace, or are they allowed to roll their own? Or what if we discover another race of sentient beings who communicate to us with absolutely no ambiguity that they are indeed 'atheists'? How do we redraw our beliefs then?

An atheist can get through life without religion, and finds no self-contradiction in his views (or, dare I say, beliefs). The moment you introduce some ill-defined, evidence-free, subjective belief system you open the door to ALL ill-defined, evidence-free, subjective belief systems, and our energies and resources get used up trying to defend them against each other. An atheist hardly tries to 'subsume these opposing positions' to make it through the day. Simply negating them all with the letter 'A' does the trick nicely, and frees the mind for other matters.

Zippy said: “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.”

Well Zippy, it’s not nearly as hilarious as hearing you get all jittery and pissy and whiney and whaley while telling atheists to read Armstrong again with an “open heart”. What kind of nebulous, intellectually bankrupt advice is that?

Atheists are atheist because we have the temerity to insist on extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. Armstrong makes extraordinary claims but gives no evidence(unlike real intellectuals like Richard Dawkins who backs up everything with evidence or dismisses ideas for the lack thereof).

P.S. The heart is a muscle that pumps blood through the body and does not possess the faculties for reason or thought.

“They say ‘It’s time science replaced religion’” – do they? I don’t. Why such an impoverished choice? I do say it’s time we grew out of religion, even the amorphous, slippery, fuzzy kind of roll-your-own religion that Karen Armstrong is selling. I don’t know what the word ‘spiritual’ means (nobody does) but I think it refers to something mental, an operation of the mind, which is an emergent property of matter. There are many workings of the mind that are not science. There are feelings, there is imagination, empathy, conscience, memory – and, if you really want something to replace religion, there is art. There are also delusion, paranoia, fear, greed, hatred and stupidity. Yes, Dawkins is a fanatic (though how does she know about his TV programs without having seen them – miraculously?) but perhaps one fanatic is a necessary corrective in a world threatened by savage theocracy. It may not be the Quran that says you should kill someone for wearing shorts, but it was religious unreason that said it to someone just the other day, and that is a good enough reason to distrust entirely that particular form of mental activity.

Nietzsche - the man often given sole responsibility for burying God - wondered, "is man only a blunder of God, or God a blunder of man?" Who can say for sure? Thus, we are relegated to uncertainty, yet, unfortunately, few are content remaining in the Undecided category. After all, as a group, the Undecided sort of look like fools in a world where most people have made up their minds for or against.

Armstrong, who calls herself religious in this interview, has historically shown a propensity for being Undecided while leaning toward agnosticism. She has brilliantly negotiated the middle path, objectively reporting historic developments and religious beliefs in a unique way, so that, if atheists had been imaginative enough to form a secular kind of Hall of Fame, she would qualify for a nonreligious form of sainthood. For those piling on here realize one thing if nothing else, she has made belief in general, including humanistic atheism, more legitimate as long as believers of all kinds observe a moderation regarding other believers. She particularly holds sacred the ancient human custom of honoring and/or looking for the sacred. Is that profane? Is it a waste of time? Or is it possible such a search could lead to an understanding that might support a sense of respect for all beliefs that are relatively honorable?

What she finds disturbing about atheists in general and Dawkins, and others, in particular, is an insistence of certainty that necessarily negates all other forms of spiritual and religious belief. The atheists say: Prove there's God. The believers say: Prove there's no God. Indeed, it cannot be proved either way at least at this point. So then, if you don't believe, why insist there's no God, why not doubt there's a God a la Thomas Huxley, who pioneered agnosticism? And likewise, believers, why not hold absolute faith in your values while acknowledging that other belief systems, including agnosticism, may have validity? There may, in fact, not be a God, or there could be a creator not accurately represented by today's religious creeds. You may believe in God; Why does everyone else have to believe like you? Doesn't every religion profess a different view of God and morality? According to their own assertions, only one of the major religions could be absolutely right. What if they were each in their own way partially right?

Why isn't respect for that kind of uncertainty part of most religions? Because humans haven't evolved that far yet. And it is within that realm of human immaturity where Armstrong is doing remarkable work - the kind of work that could unite traditional opponents.

There's no question that religions have produced great anguish and bloodshed, but such misadventures don't preclude the possibility of God's existence. Likewise, the adoption of secularism, beginning with the Enlightenment and continuing through the Cold War, indisputably, provided the rationality for lethal regimes, ranging from the Jacobins to the Communists. And based on atheistic principles promulgated by ideologues

tens of millions of people lost their lives. Men like Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and Mao felt entitled to pursue their secular desires - aims that had previously been held in check by the administration of oppressive and coercive religious values. None of that, however, means that God does exist. But the last 200 years of Western secularism does demonstrate that godless societies can foment horrible consequences. Why deny it? Are all atheists good people?

One thing is for sure: When the strictures of moderation are loosened too far, when the coercive deterrents of religion, such as hell, no longer frighten people, there isn't much of a secular credo holding people back from chasing their wildest fantasies except for the law. And at some point when individuals are no longer concerned about what's sacred beyond their own immediate interests, and a higher purpose seems like a superstitious

exercise, they are animated chiefly by what Plato called the beastly part of man.

Without spirituality and religion how do you tame that? The Golden Rule? That's fine if nearly everyone's playing by the rules, but is that likely? So far, the secularists, now on the losing end of the culture wars, haven't constructed a suitable, normative alternative to religious guidance. Until that day arrives, you'd be wise to check out Armstrong's reporting for those are the values that will prevail over most human intercourse in the interim.