Bloated, and a waste of talent on both sides of the camera. I can't remember when I've been so bored by a film - perhaps it was the original "Rollerball." Damn you, Ebert and Roeper!!!

Although this thread has probably run its course, I just want to chime in and reject the implication that atheism is the same as anti-religion. Atheism is, in fact, a mindset that does not concern itself with religion or theology at all. The study of theology, as you depict it at some length, strikes me as nothing more than a protracted bullshit session, replete with the wild speculation and twisted logic that often occurs in the lounge of a college dormitory after a few bong hits.

It is true that various despots and charlatans have used religion to further their own selfish or political ends. Henry IV famously remarked that "Paris is worth a mass" before converting to Catholicism and taking the throne of France. Napoleon likewise proclaimed that when in Egypt he was a "Mussulman," and when in Egypt he was a Catholic. But the church itself has often wielded theology like a club to keep its adherents in thrall. Many Catholic saints were originally pagan deities whom the church cynically co-opted in order to increase their dominion over Europe. So what? The fact is that religion is there to be used and abused, whether by secular or religious mountebanks and true believers. Objectively, there is little difference between losing your head to the French Revolution and being tortured to death by the Spanish Inquisition.

Armstrong, and posters like you, strike a condescending pose and decry the fact that people like Dawkins presume to criticize religon without having studied it from the inside out. One needn't make a detailed study of the folkways and "philosophical" underpinnings of astrology or phrenology to reject them as frauds. Ditto Christianity et al.

glad to know the dictionary is among your sacred texts. But nothing in the dictionary definition of atheism is incompatible with my personal definition. It is certainly possible to be completely indifferent to something and disbelieve it at the same time.

And I apologize if I mischaracterized your rambling discussion of "theism" as "theology." But as I've explained, such matters are of little consequence to me except insofar as religious precepts and trends encroach on our secular rights. I don't know much about astrology or scientology either, so if you'd like to take me to task for those glaring gaps in my knowledge, feel free.

Finally, as you seem to be fond of "what if" speculation: what if atheism is innate in humans, and religion only a reaction to the "horrible" knowledge that dwells deep within us that life is without meaning or purpose? I guess "believing" that makes me something of a nihilist, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Why don't you do the honors...

you are obviously a thoughtful and widely-read individual, and you approach this topic with a relatively open mind. That is why a comment like the following is so aggravating to me:

"And that's why most people would rather live next to a moderate Christian than a reckless atheist. Wouldn't you?"

Yes, indeed. I would also rather live next door to a moderate atheist than a reckless Christian. I fail to see your point, unless it is that atheists are more likely to exhibit undesirable traits than Christians. And based on your other comments, I can't believe that this is what you intended to imply. At least I hope not...

It is my experience, anecdotal though it may be, that the children of fundamentalists are much more likely to be "problem children" or "burnouts" than the children of parents with more moderate views on religion. This does not invalidate religion any more than the odd "reckless atheist" invalidates atheism.

As an atheist, I don't believe in original sin. As a realist, I do believe that humans are flawed creatures, to some extent still in thrall to innate biological instincts and selfish behaviors. The patina of civilization with which we have succeeded in covering ourselves is thin indeed, but it does not consist only of religious precepts. As you acknowledge, there is a long tradition of secular reasoning that has been applied to perfecting human society, if not humans themselves.

Most prominently for our discussion here, our founding fathers resorted solely to reason and law in addressing these problems, and devised a constitution and a legal framework with which to constrain our baser instincts. Religion was left to its own sphere, and its free practice written into the secular instruments that founded our democracy.

I don't discount the long litany of societal ills you provide, but nor do I ascribe them to religion or the lack thereof. The demise of education in civics and history in this country is more troubling to me than the demise of religious education (not that I've seen much evidence of the latter.) I think we as a society would be much better served by a mandatory year or two of public service than by some kind of religious revival.