1. Genie shows barred by Islam, clerics say

Comment #32191 by Twinky on April 16, 2007 at 5:54 am

I am all understanding and because I can think and I can reason with God's creation.

2. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15067 by Twinky on December 28, 2006 at 4:36 pm

Brave, brave woman. I hope that I still have that strength of spirit when I reach 50 years of age. Hats off!

3. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14646 by Twinky on December 23, 2006 at 10:35 pm

"Mr. Dawkins offers his own "new" Ten Commandments, such as "Do not discriminate or oppress" and "Value the future on a timescale longer than your own." "

[sarc]Hmm, good point here.. these are truly detestable sentiments. Let all good christians rise up against this unspeakable abomination of intention disguised as reason.

And also thank God he gave me the sense to distinguish between what I discern as the good morals in the holy text from what I discern as the bad, which God surely let slip accidentally as he was dictating to his prophets[/sarc]

4. The rise of the 'New Atheists'

Comment #5643 by Twinky on November 10, 2006 at 8:31 am

Mark T hits the nail on the head for me with this point:

"I think if someone religious is posting on an athiest site they are either
a) Trying to inflame the discussion to show the reactions to their congregations.
b) Trying to save us all..."

I am sure that Charlene's intentions are towards (b), although many would post here with an agenda more aligned with (a). With that in mind, it is always useful to visualise how your response might look taken out of context and shown to a group of converts. Let's not give them any fuel to add to the fire.

I agree wholeheartedly with Chunky when he suggests that we not engage in discussion with Charlene. If she is willing to question her views, this website contains sufficiet resource for her to begin to do so, and maybe in trying to "save" us she will liberate herself. If not, nothing you can say here will make a difference.

With regard to Simon Hooper's article, I truly hope that Kaufman's prediction of the decline of secularism in the 21st century turns out to be false.

It is also responsibility-dodging at best to blame any rise of religiousity on birth rates. Each and every person has a responsibility to do what they can in order to stop the indoctrination of the young. I fail to understand how the religious cannot understand the simple fact that if their religion is the truth, and god is real, why should they need to indoctrinate children? Why a need for religious "education"? Surely they will find their way to God through reason. Even if there is a need for some religious "education", how can you justify teaching them about any one religion more than any other?

Most religions have their own (sometimes divergent) ways to "heaven" and "hell" (or equivalent), so, given that you believed in one of these, wouldn't you have a moral duty to ensure that your child was given equal exposure to each of these and allowed, at a suitable age, to make a decision between these (or atheism) when they are capable of systematic analysis of the facts? To make the decisions that would see them to paradise or damnation? I think if even this small step were taken, we would see a rapid decline in religiosity, as the (many) contradictions would be exposed more easily to a reasoning person than to a child.

The cynic in me knows that religious institutions know this every bit as well as we do, and that is the precise reason that children are still indoctrinated. That to me shows a lack of conviction in their own beliefs, but without the courage to shake off the shackles, or to wish others to do so.