It is quite remarkable, having just got in after a long day, to see how the perpetrator of this thread has handled himself. First, he posts a link to a very long article from which he quotes about two lines and adds no comment of his own (why the hell did he post it at all, I wondered, apart from to say that here's a bloody great big long article which I agree with and I think I'll let it do all my work...) Then, of course, and risibly, when I responded he accused me of not reading it (odd, that, as it had occurred to me from his opening post that he'd only managed a quick bit of cherrypicking himself, but, as I didn't know that for sure, I thought better about saying it). During the day he's done what he should have done at the outset (stung into getting off his arse?) and revisited bits of the thing in order to comment on it.

Now I said that the article was of little interest and was a pain to wade through. Yer ex-Catholic, atheistic author simply expounds the tired old reactions to the alleged new atheism that has been trotted out so many times before. We neo-atheists (has he paused, by the way, to consider the inflammatory insult-potential of that stupid expression? Thought not!) are vehemently opposed to religion and resent its privileges in society. These atheists don't think that disbelief should be kept locked up in the closet. They speak of "coming out," a terminology borrowed from the gay movement, as if their nonreligiousness was a forbidden secret that they now want to share with the world. Well I never! He and Jack ought to get together, get out more and find us some of these miserable people. It is a lamentably poor characterisation, not even a caricature. In fact, they don't exist (and I know a lot of atheists who make so bold as to not keep conveniently silent about it). The writer's thesis that activist atheism reflects trauma. The stricter one's religious background, the greater the need to go against it and to replace old securities with new ones…… is just about the most stale part of a very stale article. The good old "bitter ex-Catholic" notion will always fill the gap nicely for a lazy non-thinker such as yer man, and why not take it a demonising step further and imagine that we're traumatised into the bargain. Nutty or what. We have inner demons to be kept at bay... in the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, [why] do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion? Not only do we harbour demons (so who needs demonising!), we lust after certitude. I told you, Jack, up the thread that neither Dawkins nor Shaw demands or requires certitude. Certitude is the enemy of atheism, stripping it of all its rationality. The article is full of absurdities but that one is the most wrong-headed of the lot. In this conversation all the certitude lies in the laps of believers (with honourable exceptions such as Joe). Your prayers, your hymns, your edicts, your traditions, what you tell your kids, and our towns and cities full of religious symbolism everywhere, are replete with certitude. Yet the most militant "neo-atheist" in the world says only that there is probably no God. Next, we are "poor listeners", then he goes on to ridicule a big university debate he went to. Well I'll tell you what. YouTube is full of Richard Dawkins debating religion and atheism in their various facets with all manner of eminent opponents, and I challenge you to find a more careful listener than he.

Jack, your article is more of the same old poppycock that says nice atheists are quiet and well-mannered (we can put up with them, they're OK) while the other sort are just petulant, demon-ridden, noisy morons. In a world in which religion is the default mode even in allegedly "secular" countries (which all have their mosques, synagogues and churches, decorated with God-glorifying symbolism shouting its questionable message to the world, not just to the flock, and "faith" schools to which parents may choose to send their unfortunate offspring in order to be indoctrinated just like they once were), you should be welcoming those few voices (and it ain't that many of us, let's face it!) that might just get a few more people not joining us (we ain't like that) but at least beginning to ask some of the right questions.