I have enjoyed the postings but I think some of the arguments might be clearer (and people could agree in a few more places) if things like spirituality and religion weren't used interchangeably. Maybe some definitions would help. Does anyone buy this as a distinction:

Spirituality - a desire or searching for the answers to things that appear to be unknowable,e.g. why are we here? what happens at death, etc. Humans can come up with all sorts of answers to these questions and there is no reason to argue about whether one answer is better than another or to try to convince someone else to adopt one's own views.

Religion - a set of answers to unknowable questions, based on faith, and imposed by some sort of structure (arguably for control and/or money or maybe even a sincere desire to do good things). Religion is organzied at some level and the fundamental ones insist that theirs is the only way. Even "moderates" are likely to believe that followers of other sects are wrong about something.

As an atheist, my personal view is that spirituality is a waste of time and usually evidence of sloppy thinking or an inability to get over a fear of death or loneliness or whatever. But who cares? As long as people don't feel a need to impose their views on others (or make decisions that impact others' ability to live in peace and happiness), I don't care if they need to see supernatural forces at work where I would see rational or natural processes.

Religion, however, with its assurance in knowing the unknowable and its adherents need to be sure that their particular variation is the "truth," is clearly poison.

and jdzappas post which comes next, that was kind of my whole point. Spirituality can be anything you want it to be. Fine. If that works for you, great - it can't harm anybody else. But if something can be anything to anyone, then it can't have any value except on an individual basis. There is no point to talking about what people en masse ought to do, unless you are a proponent of religion, which I conveniently defined earlier as organized and dogmatic so I could argue that it is religion that many of us atheists have a problem with. Spiritual people that I know generally don't go around pushing their beliefs on others. As an atheist, I don't push my non-belief on others, but I will argue all day long with religious people who intrude their views on me.

As with the Hitchens' comments, I'm enjoying the posts here very much. As some have pointed out, a lot of Wolpert's ideas are not all that new. Have any of you read Mencken's "Treatise on the Gods" (1930)? He describes a scenario where early humans are trying to understand the world around them, and points out that as young human children are inclined to see causality in natural events, early people likely did as well. When some caveman first shook his fist at the flood that killed his family (as the waters coincidently receded) the first priest was born. He takes it on from there with tremendous wit and style, funnier than Hitchens could ever be (and Hitchens is a riot). The follow-up "Treatise on Right & Wrong" explores the origins of ethical systems and is likewise very good. Were Mencken alive today he would be dismayed, but probably not surprised, by the current lunacies perpetrated by fundamentalists of all stripes. A few of his word choices sound horrible in today's pc world ("savages") but he was clearly one of the best free-thinkers of the first half of the last century.

Going back further, anyone enjoying these topics should revisit Mark Twain and his "Letters from the Earth", "Diaries of Adam and Eve", and "Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven," all of which poke major fun at traditional christian beliefs by taking them at face value and following them to their "logical" conclusions. Additionally, his dissection of the business of "Christian Science" is a great expose of the development and growth of that giant fraud.

Further evidence that nothing changes much and the arguments are all the same can be found in a book by Charles Erskine Scott Wood published first in 1927, "Heavenly Discourse." It is written in the form of a play, with god, jesus, twain, jefferson, voltaire, rabelais, etc. etc. chatting about various topics, most of which are as relevant as if it were written last week. Back then it was Billy Sunday, now it's Pat Robertson. Then it was about patriotism and censorship, now it's about patriotism and censorship. Prohibition - war on drugs. The wealthy getting wealthier, etc. Points out the difference between "christians" (basically church-going hypocrites) and "christ-ians" (those who live and act like christ and who pretty much don't exist). A really beautiful book.

Of course, the fact that most of the arguments are not all that new will not prevent me from buying the new books. The more people that are at least willing to consider that life might be better without religion, the better (my opinion anyway), and the more sources to argue with the better.

the witch is dead. Not on target to the thread but I just saw that Jerry Falwell is dead. Will there be a big reception for him in heaven or will he burn for eternity? Or maybe he's just dead...

As the kids today say, dude WTF? Atheists are all apartment-dwelling well-groomed liberals? Without religion we will be battling rednecks who are going to outgun us? I'll say it again, WTF? One of the stupidest comments I've ever read.