Damn, my last post seems to have got lost in the system. rather proud of that one, rattling on about Bach.. Made me feel as if I knew a bit... never mind. can't remember it now so it may not have been quite so clever after all.

Atheism is indeed a stance if people say it is. Atheism is a lack of a stance if again people say it is. For me, I prefer irreligious. It suits me. it means, for me, that I am not hostile towards peoples' creed, just the many, and especially their spiritual leaders, who feel what they believe is right, (and why shouldn't you think that, i suppose) therefore inflict it on others. Everything from influencing politics on the day to day level all the way to getting society to play to their tune. Such people are dangerous.

Dangerous includes Abu Hamza, the cleric the USA are trying to get extradited from the UK at the moment. You can have him, (so long as you don't murder him. Our extradition terms are clear on that at least.) But what can you do with somebody who says God told him his work is not done till there is a Caliph in The White House?

Dangerous includes those who inflict child abuse, all the way from direct (other threads cover this so not going to rattle on now,) to abuse through stopping children from joining in for bizarre reasons, all the way to telling them science has a mission to disguise the truth, that Darwin was evil and all that codswallop. Even on this thread, I am shocked and amazed to hear somebody who can type and use a computer claim science is wrong and God made the earth a few weeks ago. then... some contributors don't help in my opinion by pointing out the worthiness of some of this person's other comments. Sorry, but if somebody is being irrational, you can't pick and choose, it doesn't help them. They think therefore there may be merit in other things they say. if somebody is intelligent enough to join the debate, then their ignorance has to be pointed out. One of the reasons fundamentalists of most religions seem to be on the increase is that the rest of us are told to accept their right to their opinion. It only encourages the buggers, (in the same way I suppose as voting encourages politicians.....)

Joe's stance in general is one I can be comfortable with. That said, I could never call myself a Christian, but the pragmatic common sense he adds to this debate can sometimes make me feel a bit extreme in my paranoia of people who think they have a right to judge me for my lack of superstition.

I do have a moral code. I get it from the same place insects do. Where that is, NOBODY has found out yet. I also believe in things that cannot be explained. Like all football fans, it is, in the cold light of day, irrational. Sheffield Wednesday got relegated, are playing awful football and have business problems that are reflected by attitudes of players. YET I support them, remain of the faith and get into all sorts of heated arguments in the pub defending them, even when I know at the intellectual level my argument is fatally flawed.

Got a mate who's a vicar, and I could also be describing some of the "debates" we have over a beer or ten.