Nicely skewered, in fact (and rather nicely), by one Richard Herring who makes the point in one of the later Collings and Herrin Podcasts. Althuogh funny, he says, sneaking the serious point in under the radar, that the whole thing about praying for the safe return of Madeleine McCann was a bit pointlees.

Presumably God, being omnisicent, omnipresent and all, would know exactly where she was and why. Why would he only help if enough people prayed for it? And how capricious and vindictive would such a God have to be?

I am probably as much of an agnostic as Dawkins, though I don't feel the need to push it in people's faces. Conversely, I am quite happy if people have religious belief, as long as they don't feel an overpowering and evangelisitic zeal either to tell me all about it in great detail or blow me up until I do believe.

The problem with liberalised religion is that it still opens the door to all manner of spirtitually-inspired evils. However, the reverse is also true, that permitting atheist sentiments (eg bus poster campaign) provides a potential light for those ensnared by religious dogma.

It reminds me of a comment made around the time of all that "teaching creationism" kerfuffle in the US a few years ago: OK, fine, teach creationism in the science class; but while we're at it, let's teach the ludicrousness of religion in RE classes too?

that if you want to successfully deal with militant and dangerous oppressive religious factions (of which there are many) you neither want to convert more to their causes or make it hard for moderates to work with you towards the shared goal of stopping oppressive practices.

Militant Atheism does not, as yet, have any form of oppression on the scale of the Taliban or american christian cults. It isn't as bothersome and confrontational as the Jehovas Witness or as subtly destructive as Catholic attitudes to sexuality. But it stems from the same place.

You can oppose destructive and terrible religions whilst also accepting the individuals right to believe and practice whatever they wish as long as it harms no other person.

And it is logical to accept that one can not know for definite one way or the other. Evolution does disprove a literal interpretation of the bible but it does not disprove God.

Dawkins and Hitchens are misguided in thinking there approaches are helpful, even in furthering their own cause. Dawkins at least has his heart in the right place. Hitchens is just an unpleasant bruiser, and shares a lot more traits with the arrogant and fundamentalist men he believes he attacks.

some may feel that *ahem* certain other religions may benefit from their own version. For example, ooh, off the top of my head, Danish newspaper proprieters may hold this opinion...

1.That at some point someone will post a clip from Life of Brian.

2. That someone will post a clip from Not the Nine O'Clock News about being "an ostensibly Python worshiping nation".

Of two things we can be certain...

You have used Andrew Collins' name in a thread title.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

and by the time my subscription issue arrives the thread will be dead so I will wade in blind. I bought the God Delusion for a bit of holiday reading and it went like this

Chapter 1. All religious people are misguided morons...OK, I actually agree but might have put it a bit more delicately

Chapter 2. More evidence that all religious people are misguided morons,oh and agnostics are just indecisive morons...OK, got it

Chapter 3. Yet more evidence that all religious people are misguided morons and anybody who doesn't agree is, well, a moron...blimey! This bloke's starting to worry me

Chapter 4. Even more evidence that all...bollocks to this, where's that new Ludlum

I've since spoken to several people who had the same experience. I suppose that if you hold the same views it makes buying the book a bit pointless as its certainly not entertaining and he does seem a bit over zealous to me.

Never read anything by Hitchins, but seen him on TV a couple of times and he always comes across as a bit of a self righteous git. Have I got him wrong?

which complains that atheist are increasingly vitriolic and belligerent and becoming as distasteful as religions types by being erm being vitriolic and belligerent.

My personal experience of religious people in this country is mostly positive. They are generally not "morons" but thoughtful humane kind people.
Putting aside the religious side many religious people (especially nonconformist) were at the heart of many of the social movements that have sort to improve the lot of everyone in this rainy country. In fact the enlightened rationalism atheist treasure comes in part from the non-conformist ideals of free will, education, enquiry, personal betterment etc. Atheist rarely acknowledge this.
Attacking prayer etc as "moronic" is to down play the role of ritual and ceremony in our lives presumably hardcore super rational atheist would ban the pulling wing bones, the blowing out of candles and even sending of get well wishes to your aged aunts.

As I have said before I like Andrew Collins find these triumphal Atheists like Dawkins a tad sour and inhumane and look to the people of whatever creed or believe system who are more interested in what we share in common rather than concentrating on our differences.

from your post, Chris:

"even sending of get well wishes to your aged aunts"

Why do you see this as analogous to my objection to prayer?

It's easy to pick holes in the concept of prayer. Which is of course why I did so ;-)

I don't see any connection between this obviously ludicrous concept (when you give it a moment's thought) and the timeless human desire to convey a personal message from one human being to another. The point is that in the latter example thoughts are conveyed in tangible form, such as through a greetings card, directly from one person to another (known) person. This, understandably, usually has a beneficial effect on the recipient. Nothing supernatural about it.

with the advent of agriculture and the first cities, leading to the first wars. You are all talking about organised religion, organised by MAN with his usual warped vested interests. Organised religion is a corporation of wealth and centralised control of the mass. The Pope and a McCheese Burger are the same. Organised religion and spirituality are most definitely not. We need to re-intergrate the sacred feminine why there is still time.

I've read quite a bit of Dawkins and always found him reliant on reason and explanation rather than belligerence. What I get most from his books is his absolute love for the wonders of any form of life and his enthusiasm in passing on his knowledge.

that whatever you believe or don't believe, religion - and especially prayer - brings a lot of comfort to a lot of people. Don't knock it.

It's not up to us to tell people who believe in God that they're wrong, or that we find prayer 'obscene'. It's a personal choice, and as long as it's not rammed down my throat they can get on with it. And that goes for the athiests too.

is in the space between atoms, before and beyond time, not male or female, or dark or light, is not the question or the answer, is not life, is not death, not a thing, not nothing, is not and is.

god is not intercession, mediation or direction

what we do in life is entirely our own affair

the earth will be here after we are gone

the sun will die

everything end

god does not end or begin

and thought he made some good points about the dangers of all kinds of extremism - whether it's of a religious or of a political nature.

Just how are atheists 'ramming their views down people's throats'?

All I see is that they are putting their views out there (and, yes, promoting them, in common with all authors), for people to read or ignore as they please.

True wisdom indeed. Beautiful. Socrates was considered the wisest of men, for he knew that he did not know. Om Shanti, fellows.

My issue hasn't arrived yet, so I don't know what my column is about.

" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

Prayer is merely a form of directed thought energy, and there are many examples of matter being directly influenced by mind, for anyone who cares to do thorough unbiased research. It doesn't fit the interests of the current paradigm, and is consequently ignored or dis-credited as a result.

Like politics, best left out of discussions, purely because no one will ever agree. Especially on forums. When in person its easier to have nice rational debates, before finally agreeing or agreeing to disagree. It all ends amicably in a pub / dinner discussion.

Instead, on forums, it ALWAYS descends into people effectively saying that anyone who doesn't agree is either:
a) stupid
b) wrong
c) both

But that doesn't follow. The idea of God is something that CANNOT be proved one way or the other.

In my opinion science helps to explain how God has created things. But that doesn't mean that I can prove he exists. I just know what I believe.

And that is essentially all it comes down to. Either you have faith in something other than a bleak, meaningless existence on a dying planet. Or you don't. And neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to tell you (as in all, not picking on anyone) what to believe.

I'm a christian, I don't have any shame in that. I think that it is based on good morals (i.e. love your neighbour and do to others as you would have done to yourself), and I find it to be quite a happy, hope-filled existence. But it isn't for everyone.

To quote a line from the "Angels and Demons" film that I thought was superb - "The church is flawed because humanity is flawed". And I don't think anyone can argue with that.

(Although I do expect I'll get negged... oh well)

Either you have faith in something other than a bleak, meaningless existence on a dying planet. Or you don't.

Wow. That's some worldview expressed there :-)

I'm completely fed up of Andrew Collin's "Whatever" column. To have a columnist who literally just p***es off the readers every single week is getting increasingly ridiculous. How long will they stand by the single writer in the Word pantheon who manages to provoke anger and rudeness on a website which is otherwise governed by politness and curteousy?

And when was the last time he actually wrote about music - or even pop culture in any of its forms? Not often. If the man wants to annoy people on current affairs or philisophical issues then he should join a newspaper. Lets face it, what is his column if not a weekly audition for a Guardian slot? It takes a lot to make me say this about anyone in the Word, but, from this reader's perspective, it would be a considerable gain if you got rid of him.

It's the subject matter that's given rise to the level of response to this thread, not the content of the piece itself.

When Andrew quotes a Christian theologian describing Dawkins "preaching to his God-hating choirs... clearly expected to relish his rhetorical salvoes and raise their hands high in adulation", it's hardly an objective description; it's the sound of someone with everything to lose making an ad hominem attack on his opponent by suggesting that he wants the same high priest role as the worst offenders of extremist theism.

An inflammatory accusation from a Christian theologian or two, a few bus borne adverts, some TV appearances and a handful of best selling books. Hardly evidence of militant atheism, threatening one's desire to sit quietly in the corner getting on with not believing, is it?

Quite fun to read, mind, and even more fun to follow the fall out.

look at the Sistine chapel or listen to a gospel choir than read anything by Dawkins or Hitchins

To quote Brideshead Revisited

"You can't believe in something simply because it's a nice idea"
"Why not?"

My Mum believes that one of the stars in the sky is her dead Mum - clearly it's not but it brings her comfort. The likes of Dawkins would deny her that

God ,Jesus, Jehovah etc in the article with the word "Santa"

then re read. Makes perfect sense then.

Unfortunately "quite ,passive" non believers where until recently in the west outcasts ,burnt at stake, excommunicated..(fill in with many examples).. usually sought out by very "proactive" religious folks who did not take the "quite, passive" route a trend which continues to this day in many areas

The irony of Andrew's piece is that in societies where religion has the upper hand there is no "decadent rock n roll music/culture" or a sniff of a magazine like the word..I am sure even cricket might be deemed a bit risky in some parts..

The basic freedoms we have now owe a lot to "deity intolerant" folks for the most part not just in the field of science but politics ,the arts, social sciences over the last few hundred years who challanged and unsettled the status quo..I do think Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens amongst others are merely continuing that tradition to ensure --Freedom from Religion and a lot of the basic, often oppressive harmful nonsense that goes along with it...or as Woody Allen said get away from the "pay now enjoy later" attitude

I don't want to pay for something I haven't bought let alone seen any evidence for and its ok to holler that every once and a while to ensure that right remains in place -- which is not done by being quite and passive, because history has shown that more often then not its the religious folks who turn up at your door and "threaten you with bats" not the non believers.

To quote John Cale "nothing frightens me more then religion at my door"

There's a lot more meat on 'em.

I thought the comment that ' we are a layman's magazine' was really interesting because we often forget that due to the very power of print. Interested, too, in his comment that 'religious irrationalism' has him in despair. I share quite a lot of that feeling but I continue to hold on to my own faith. I pray (usually for guidance, for wisdom, for self-control, for the possibility of caring for those whom I don't instinctively or naturally care for) but rarely ask for anything concrete though in some ways I feel I ought to. Prayer is restorative and transformative for most people who bother regularly with it.

The thing about laymans' opinions is that we are often angered when they enter into areas where we are experts or at least very experienced and familiar with the terrain. Almost all of the comments about religion and atheism are lacking in a sense of the complexity of the issue. For example, if I were to refer to Jesus' statement about the great commandment " Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.." which is followed by the remarkable comment that the second command is "like it: love your neighbour as yourself", I doubt that we would ever get to a discussion of why it is remarkable, of how much of a departure it is from 'religion'. Instead, we would mostly get comments about whether he actually said this, whether Jesus actually existed, about how people, especially Christians fail to live up to these standards. Additionally, there would be some who would simply say that this is 'bollocks." I recognise too that these comments are rarely understood or even thought about by Christians.

Clearly, people carry understandable baggage from schooling, bad experiences, church abuses, disappointed expectations. But the lack of opportunity and willingness to genuinely explore an idea is what leads me to frustration that can sometimes feel like despair.

Collins just appeared on Radio York as I was responding to something he wrote earlier in the thread................... not much of a coincedence but .........

So I'm a moron am I, for having beliefs, and having "Not grown out of it"?

Thanks a lot you bunch of conceited people.

Are christians not allowed just as much to believe in something rather than nothing?

By all of what's been written so far, you would think not.

We're not all (Pea)nutters. Some of us are rational people, and have feelings too.

So before you all get on your high horse saying that people are unenlightened for choosing religion, just remember that some of the people on here do believe, and get offended when people call them morons, just like everyone else.

Sorry for venting spleen, but surely people can see where I'm coming from?

ancient/'pagan' esoteric theory i.e. the sacrificial God/King. See Osiris, Odin. The Devil's goat image ? To suppress native belief re. the Celts and Cernunnos. Holy sites and The Goddess tradition ? All successfully incorporated into the vested interest of the re-branded Roman Empire, this time by dogma rather than sword. They did a pretty good job. This does not mean to ridicule the reality of the historical Jesus. I think he would have a very dim view of what was done with his original message over the ages.

There are thousands of us out there who don't bother youse non believers telling you you are wrong.
We keep to our (I admit, often middle class) selves but get on with a peculiar kind of hybrid non-theocratic religiosity: praying, going to church, filling Trocaire boxes, collecting for missions/ Palestine etc and doing Fair Trade things.
We don't believe in the often sectarian nonsensical decrees of (celibate) mad men, but enjoy the repose of that which gives us some sense rootedness and community in a difficult world.
We still listen to the Stones or Public Enemy or French hip-hop or whatever and get on with it.
We don't bother you directly and I wish you wouldn't bother me in one of the few places I really enjoy inhabiting on a regular basis - FFS get back to HJH-esque (we know how much you hate the addendum) levity. I know don't have to read it, and have broken my own rule of rising to it twice, but catch yourselves on.
If not, go to the boards of the Humanist or some such publication, some of us have sandwich related puns to be getting on with.

And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.

and now Gerard Manley Hopkins. Lovely, Sheev and Paddy.

What are the five most underrated washing machines?

is why Dawkins talks of believers as being ignorant etc etc but only permits himself to be 6.9 atheist on a scale of 7. For one who seems to deride not just creationists but those of any religious belief, leaving that little get out clause seems bizarre. And if his argument is "you can never really be sure", then he might be a little less fundamentalist in his fervour.

Still, being a shouty polemicist brings in more television work than suggesting your "opponent" might have something to say after all I suppose. And setting yourself up in conversation with the looniest creationist you can find to make your point is pretty weak. "Take care, there are nutters out there!" No shit Sherlock?

I'm not troubled by what Dawkins says but I'm really getting weary of his fundamentalist persona, in much the same way that fundamentalists of all sorts get on my wick. Live and let live - I don't want Jehovah's Witness coming round to try to convert me and nor do I want atheists telling me that God is nothing more than a palindrome of dog until they're blue in the mouth.

I sent you a private email via the forums on Monday, Jonah. I wonder if you might extend me the courtesy of replying?

'Men rarely do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it for religious reasons'.
A fair point Blaise. However does anyone really believe that if religious belief was suddenly eradicated (i.e. people came to believe in Richard Dawkins) the evil in the world would cease. I think not. People have a remarkable capacity to recycle or reinvent the 'us' versus 'them' thing using whatever issues they can pluck out of thin air. We will be a long time curing this particular mindset. A tolerance gene seems to be a rarity.