Asinine, closed-minded, clueless. These atheists are just as dogma-driven as the sorry red-state bible-thumpers.

I don't even know why it bothers me when I read all this crap.

I guess it's because I fear someone else will read it and, because of it, miss out on the great joyous mysteries of our existence.

I was once an atheist, an agnostic, a believer in a universal force that had nothing to do with me, really. Its a very closed-minded system. And irrefutible within its own logic.

But God is funny. And things change. I believe that, deep in their hearts, every atheist knows the truth about the existence of God and that allows them to play their little ego games, on and on.

How refreshing to read these words...I have heard myself say often enough that I prefer ambiguity to the certainy of bronze age desert nomads pontificating from intellectual vacuums....I cannot help but question how so many people over so many millenia have bought the idiocies of organized religions. The wonder of the world is in its existence - all we have to do is open our eyes and look at the everyday miracles of life around us to be utterly awestruck. Science is the tool to see the wonder of creation, not the abstract lunacy of ignorant people selling cheap beliefs in weird and perverted fantasies about tortured gods and virgin mothers.

You can't please everyone- and I guess it's still news to most people in this country that religion is just a big ritualistic superstition- but what's really new here or in Shermer's book?

For instance- is there anything surprising that I won't have read in Dennett's latest book- or for that matter in Shermer's numerous other books on religion and science?

Is there anything in the book that I wouldn't be able to find out in less time and for less money on a good website devoted to evolution? Probably not.

I too like Shermer (when he's not being too facile), but can't he write a book on gardening, or the PowerPuff Girls or something- anything- else for a change?

"We chatted around the dining room table, stacked with issues of the latest Skeptic magazine"

You mean COPIES of the latest ISSUE.

Fuck, that bugs me every time.

Good article, but...PHOTON of light. Not "proton of light."

I have a perspective on the atheist/agnostic issue which I have never seen elucidated in the pages of Mr. Shermer’s excellent magazine, Skeptic. It follows from my desire (after the fashion of gentlemen such as Mr. Shermer) to not completely antagonize people over the basic god-feelings that they experience within the confines of their own skulls.

The perception of higher beings is very real for many people. This is the feeling which says, There must be something out there bigger than us. This can be a sensation that the spirits of ancestors hover over a village. It may be the powerful emotion of a comforting hand on one’s shoulder in a time of tragedy or crisis.

I believe that these sensations are an illusion, one which is an accidental consequence of other brain functions hard-wired into our brains through evolutionary pressures. However, those god-feelings are sincere, and should not be ridiculed. On the question of these god-feelings, and on the ultimate question of some abstract god “out there,” I must say I am agnostic. There is no proof one way or the other.

But when it comes to the gods of holy books and myths - all those gods with names - I am absolutely atheist. All such gods are demonstrably fictitious. My atheism declares: I can prove that your particular god is a fiction.

Any polite person, whether a true believer or a skeptic, will revert to an agnostic form of argumentation on the ultimate question of proving or disproving the existence of an abstract, nameless god. But believers don’t believe in abstractions. They believe in the gods of holy books. An atheist has every right to declare: All holy books are equally fictitious.

I define myself as a philosophical agnostic, but also as a religion atheist.

I liked everything about this article but this:

>>But science is just a method, a way of answering questions. It's a verb not a noun.<<

No, "science" is a noun.

While I agree heartily with most of what Shermer says, I'm with Dawkins on the issue of whether belief in God and religion are in conflict with evolution, at least when the issue is framed in terms of Christianity and the God of the Bible, as it virtually always is. Most scientists have made an uneasy compromise with most religious believers (and in some cases with themselves) in championing the idea that acceptance of evolution is not in conflict with Christian faith, but this position does not stand up to rational examination.

If you accept that evolution is true, you are subscribing to the view that the creation accounts in the book of Genesis are nothing but myths. That’s fine, since they have strong mythic elements and the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming. But on what rational basis do you then conclude that the whole story of the fall of man that follows is not also a myth? It too has strong mythic elements (snakes only talk in the world of make-believe, for one) and no independent evidence to confirm it. But if this too is just a story made up by a primitive tribal people living millennia ago, then there is no original sin, no need for redemption and no need for a savior. In other words, the whole foundation of Christianity as a religion crumbles, and you’re left with, at most, the feel-good philosophy of a somewhat deluded but generally nice guy who lived in the first century CE.

While there may be some flavors of religion that do not rationally preclude acceptance of evolution, Christianity isn’t one of them. The conflict is real and remains unresolved.

Scott Stoeffler

Which god? Zeus? Vishnu? Ra?

It always amazes me that "believers" seem to show literally no curiosity about the being of God itself.

How did "God" come to exist? What was there before God? Did "it" create itself? Is it logically possibly for "something" to come from nothing?

What is the psychology of God? What kind of "personality" would such a creature have? Wouldn't it, in all likelihood, be totally alien and unknowable to us? Could a consciousnes that spans the universe and is billions of years old be understood by us? Is it logically to assume that such a being would even have thoughts or "feelings" that would be reconginzable to humnas?

What does "God" want? Could a creature that can literally will anything it desires into existence be said to actually "want" or "desire" anything? If God is in and of itself the sum total of all reality -- how could it even be aware of itself let alone experience such emotions has "want" and "plan" and "alone"? If God is literally everything is it logical to assume that it gives us as much thought and consideration as we would give our blood cells or bone marrow? in other words, we don't actually consider our parts individually -- we think of ourselves in our entirety.

Oh, and the final question that no one ever seems to ask: if God is really all-powerful and all-knowing (doesn't make mistakes) -- then wouldn't it be impossible for free will to exist?

If God KNOWS the outcome of every actions He (IT) takes -- then isn't every single event that occurs occuring specifically because God wants it to? How can there be "free will" and "self-determination" if God a) knows the outcome of every single action He takes in advance and b) takes action in our universe? Christians like to talk about how God tries to give hints and signs about what we should do (according t God) and it's really "up to us in the end to decide what action to take." But if God already knows IN ADVANCE exactly how we'll react to every single action HE takes -- then how is that free will? God already knows what we'll do. The end result is pre-ordained. If it's not, then aren't we living in a universe with a god-like creature that makes mistakes? Can a God that makes mistakes be considered God?

Free will and God can only exist if a) God DOESN'T know what's going to happen when he takes an action or b) God NEVER takes any action in this reality ever. Either option pretty much invalidates everything most major religions believes because all religions assume God(s) are always all-knowing and diectly interact with our reality.