I know that some of my posts will have upset columnists whose articles I have judged critically- though not I think connected to this particular column.

I think everyone on the internet experiences this. It's easy to give offense and easy to take offense. I've recently called people who see dark conspiracies in the 9-11 attacks 'idiots'. Also, I've recently been called a sanctimonious liar by other posters in connection to two articles on slapping.

I'm not sure whether I feel much remorse for offending opinion columnists. They're free to give any opinion and I'm free to disagree with them. It's a big bad world- and if they can't stand a little criticism then they're probably in the wrong career- or at the very least shouldn't be posting in the rough waters of Salon.

I did call one opinion writer a coward. Maybe she never read my letter. In any case, I'm sure she's used her power to call people she disagrees with much worse things in print.

As for attacking the LW in Carey's column. That's a tough one. Though I've never done it- I think it's still fair game. The LW should know that their letter will be debated vigorously by Salon's posters- so it shouldn't be a surprise. They're not forced to read the comments. Even so- maybe letters in response to Carey's column could have some basic moderation to remove any remarks which are judged to be too offensive- or trolling.

Oh- and it's also a bit of a cheap shot for Carey to imply that people who disagree with him have 'issues' themselves. Maybe Carey's a particularly bad writer and lousy at giving advice. I don't know whether that's true or not- but it's one possibility.

Since God isn't actually real- as Karen would probably admit if she had to bet her life-savings on it- it's a bit rich to chastise anyone for having an infantile view of a non-existant being.

I read her 'History of God' and she explains pretty well how religion was gradually invented and spread by people to fulfill various human needs. Nowhere did it strike me that she seriously believed in the mythology.

At least Dawkins is an honest atheist, who openly states that religion is all fiction.

Yeah, and let's get this straight- the people who talk to the bearded guy in the sky who presumaby designed and built a 1000 billion planets (but forgot to mention any of them in his textbook) are fulfilling a time-honoured tradition, but the people who hate the idea that others spend their lives in thrall to a dangerous fiction are the crazy ones?

By the way- big bangs and black holes aren't religious- they're empirically testable hypotheses. There's a difference.

1) It hardly makes for a good argument to state that people who you disagree with are lacking in intelligence and are being kneejerk. Surely you could have made your points without those poor attempts at insult.

2) This seems to be a common response on Salon letter pages. If someone disagrees with you, then they might as well be a Republican- or they're as bad as the Republicans. Yup- Republicans love atheists like me!

3) Jesus existed. Proof?

4) Us atheists may on occasion be dramatic, but we leave the pontification to the pontiffs.

Thanks,

Chrsitian

It doesn't matter how great I think my opinion is- I don't want future employers Googling my every comment on Salon. For instance, their politics and religious views may well differ from mine.

There's a real difference between writing a letter to a newspaper a decade ago and leaving your mark on a website today.

Signing our letters sounds great in theory- but most of us are too wary of the power of Google to attach our names for eternity to some highly controversial political article on Salon.

That doesn't mean we don't stand by our letters. I don't think many of us are hiding behind this anonymity.

By the way- Christian is my real name.

It's the Bible and not the atheists who invented the 'heavenly father' terminology- which in plain-speak translates to 'daddy in the sky'.

It's practically impossible to determine exactly what Armstrong believes- at least from this interview. I assume though that most Christians believe the Bible more than Armstrong's very philosophical and nebulous writings.

And yes, it does grate to hear her so readily dismiss Dawkins, who as I pointed out before, is completely honest about his belief system and has written profoundly and thoughtfully on religion for many years.

All the atheist arguments here can't dispell my FAITH that Thor, the Norse god of thunder is constantly watching over me.

Why can't people be agnostic about Thor? You don't have any proof that he doesn't hide behind clouds and initiate thunderstorms. Until you do, I think you better shut up.

People who don't believe in Thor- or deny the possibility that he exists are bigots. But I don't blame them- I just feel sorry that they have Thor missing from their lives. Of course, some of the posters are probably under the influence of Jörmungandr.

People have asked me if I've actually seen Thor, wielding his hammer and travelling in his chariot. That's such a simplistic question- and one I haven't deigned to answer in my 14 books on Thorism and Thoristic philosophy. And don't get me started on Ragnarok! That's completely irrelevant to the wider religious issues.

By the way- I can't stand that arrogant atheist Karen Armstrong. She completely dismisses Thor- as though he doesn't actually exist! Isn't she aware that the Nazis and Communists were atheists too? Even Saddam Hussein didn't believe in Thor. Can you really tell me that if they had let Thor into their lives they would have still killed all those people?

Excelsior!