Letters: Atheism is its own religion

It was with some shaking of my head that I read Michael Polito’s letter regarding religion as an “outdated myth.” The only myths I keep reading are those constantly attributed as reason by atheists. It’s sad to see that people who supposedly live by reason can only spout belittling statements regarding religion and such. That just proves to me atheists are the most nonsensical people on Earth.

The generalizations Polito uses in his letter are not to be seen as actions taken by all Christians. There are many Christians who do not protest when confronted or questioned regarding religious dogma but are willing to discuss. However, that’s “pushing the religion down the throat,” the atheist would cry — not wanting to engage in debate. The assumption made only shows the rule of “assume” — reflecting only on yourself and not me.

The largest delusion I see is atheism, the religion of people who claim no spirituality or belief in any god or God. And yes — it’s a religion, because atheism bears a creed, practices of denial, factions within its body, etc. They may laugh at the notion, but they only laugh at themselves.

Jesus was known far and wide, but as a condemned criminal of the Roman government, his teachings would just be seen as farcical and stricken from governmental proceedings. The Jewish leaders of the time would ban anything being openly written or preached about him.

Of course, religion is man-made — so what? Jesus was fully human when he founded his church — so it is man-made. And quite a few other things are man-made — from philosophies to scientific treatises to houses, cars, rockets, books, TVs, computers, and on and on. I guess they should all be minimized in importance because of them being crafted by man — first by idea ... then by hand.

I loved the big mistake mentioned in Polito’s letter — that “everything in the holy books has been debunked” by whatever means. That was a classic statement of untruth.

Jerusalem exists. Rain exists. Love exists. Creatures exist. People exist. The Dead Sea exists ... on and on and on. There has been scientific evidence over and over proving the developments of Scriptures. One can see the beginning verses of Genesis and understand evolution — not accepting that “day” means only 24 hours, as most fundamentalists would.

Christians are not all the same, as the atheists would like us to believe. No atheist is the same, as all Christians know.

So, before you decide to let some “modern” (LOL) philosophy of atheism sway your opinion, just take time and listen to what’s in your heart and mind. Then you can make a decision based on your conscience — not on the platitudes of another. And if you choose atheism, that is your path of life — and to be respected. It’s OK — God will still wait for you.

James Barnett

cantor/musician

Port Allen

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 23/09/2012

Am I the only one who can not follow twinkie's reasoning? Is it too abstract for me? Is it not concrete enough for my limited intellect? Does it sounds like gobbledygook because of my inability to translate? Let me know. I can take the criticism.

2) Comment by DMJ - 18/09/2012

Did you all know that Mormons think the Universe is older than God, that god, to quote Joseph Smith, was "plural and finite" not unitary and infinite as Christians believe? True story. Mormons believe that there are lots of gods, in fact. They also believe Jesus was NOT born of a virgin and that he and his father, our god, are 2 different people. Something to think about...

3) Comment by Bouncer - 17/09/2012

I cannot buy into the "denial as proof of existence" line of reasoning. I deny the existence of the Easter Bunny. Does that mean he's out there somewhere, hippity-hopping along the Easter trail, but it's just that nobody has ever seen him? I don't think so. As far as "dehumanizing God" goes, well....duh. If there is a Supreme Being, I doubt that it would want to be treated on par with one of your back-slapping beer drinking buddies. Please dispense with the "liberals this, liberals that" nonsense as such generalizations simply do not hold up under the light of scrutiny. There are plenty of non-believers who in each and every other way would fit the definition of "conservative." You've been fed a banquet of hooey for so long that you can't tell you're full of it.

4) Comment by misterfalcon - 17/09/2012

Atheists deny the pink unicorn's existence, thereby confirming that there is evidence of something there to deny. Liberals try to redefine and spiritualize pink unicorns into something that does not have an influence or concern for the world, dehumanizing pink unicorns and evidence of pink unicorn's work around them and ignoring Princess Star-Dancer, Lady of the Unicorns. Then they create rituals to substitute for a relationship with unicorns. Conservatives try to put pink unicorns in a box of their own creation, limiting those who have access to pink unicorns and making up rules about Pink Unicorns. Princess Star-Dancer said, "Saddle up, partners" Yep, flawless logic.

5) Comment by twinkie1cat - 17/09/2012

Atheists deny God's existence, thereby confirming that there is evidence of something there to deny. Liberals try to redefine and spiritualize God into something that does not have an influence or concern for the world, dehumanizing God and evidence of God's work around them and ignoring Jesus. Then they create rituals to substitute for a relationship with God. Conservatives try to put God in a box of their own creation, limiting those who have access to God and making up rules about God. Jesus Christ said, "Come. Follow Me."

6) Comment by Atticus - 17/09/2012

I wish that the Advocate would use more discretion when publishing opinion letters. I understand the need to offer multiple points of view on issues such as these, but this letter is rambling and barely coherent. Such poorly articulated arguments reflect poorly on this paper's readership and our community.

7) Comment by DMJ - 17/09/2012

Wow...where to begin. On second thought....who cares.... At least she admits religion is man-made. And "so what?" you ask James? This is what....you proved our point. Religion doesn't come from gods; it's man-made, like you said. Oops.

8) Comment by Protean - 17/09/2012

Freedom to choose...until it becomes the ultracomformist, right wing theocracy hoped for by the superstitious and fearful.

9) Comment by gofigger - 17/09/2012

America, the land of freedom to choose..........for now

10) Comment by prbeav - 16/09/2012

@ScottB “That magical feeling of love for your wife, kids, family..... nothing special about that, either. It's just a soup of chemical reactions and neurons firing. Kinda sad, huh?” >>What’s sad to me is your arrogance against nature. Joy is made possible by physics of the body, and physics in no way diminishes the objects of joy. Your arrogance shows in the phrase “nothing special about that,” as though it takes your god to experience joy. Your arrogance is against nature, not the atheists, who merely observe your opinions as your opinions and your errors as your errors.>>>> “What I continue to find interesting is thinking about what it must be like to be an atheist in today's society. Judging from the insulting comments by the non-believers, it is obviously frustrating.” >>Thereby, you are reacting falsely to three events or considerations. First, the members of the Baton Rouge community who seek to understand existence, including religion, are not all atheists but probably are non-theists voicing their opposition to the imposition of theism into Louisiana governance. By imposing theism into the biology classroom, Governor Jindal has acted against Article I, Paragraph 3, Section 3 of the LA Constitution: “No law shall discriminate against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations.” >>Second, you falsely generalize that all people who seek to understand existence are atheists, and that is your failure to appreciate, let alone respect fellow Baton Rougeans who have done the work to understand the Bible and find it and its gods lacking for themselves, with no impact on you. Would you have your neighbors hide their opinions?>> Thirdly, you don’t seem to recognize that the people who seek to understand are merely writing their opinions, which have absolutely no affect on your opinion or your ability to practice your opinion within the limits of written law—the US Constitution. When someone writes their opinion, they are not attempting to represent the truth, even when they happen to express the truth.>>> I encourage you (and others) to study the preamble to the US Constitution and on September 17, tomorrow, Constitution Day, ask yourself what “We the People of the United States” means as described in the preamble. You might even share its joy and failure so far with your family. Is it possible for the factions of the US citizens to find integrity as "We the People of the United States?"

11) Comment by Preppy6917 - 16/09/2012

*Similarly

12) Comment by Preppy6917 - 16/09/2012

Dimilarly, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has not been debunked. England exists. Owls exist. People exist. Love exists.

13) Comment by nimby? - 16/09/2012

So much assumption,presumption.ninety percent of this nations population considers themselves religious.hoping they see thru the democrats deceptive vote pandering ...

14) Comment by RedStickNative - 16/09/2012

How refreshing to see so many free thinkers in this neck of the woods. I applaud your comments and haven't much to add that you have not already said. I will agree that Mr Barnett's letter indicates a high amount of unquestioned indoctrination and a deep desire to belong to his "tribe." The philosophy of atheism is far from modern and predates christianity. That Mr. Barnett is unaware of this is no surprise as he is no doubt unfamiliar with any ancient history, including the history of the ancient greeks, romans, egyptians, hebrews, babylonians, etc. In this country, we aren't given a education in classical literature or ancient cultures unless we either choose to learn it in college or delve into it on our own. An understanding of such can be enlightening about the origins of the abrahamic religions. It lays bare the obvious manufacture of these myths and that christianity is in no way original or extraordinary but much the same as those that preceded it. They too lasted for several thousand years with devotees fighting and dying for their gods favor. It hasn't been long, less than 200 years ago that humans have been able to show that the "powers" attributed to their gods is false and without merit. Advances in science and technology has shown us that there are natural explanations for what was once only believed to have been done magically. We've learned quite enough through science to tuck away our imaginary magic man and whether we like it or not, accept reality where the answers will alway come up that it happens naturally, no god(s) needed. There will always be more to discover, but we don't expect to ever find the answer is supernatural. Science can definitively tell us the two creation stories in Genesis are fictional, archeologists have confirmed that the Exodus story is debunked. No Genesis, no need for a jesus. In the NT it is written jesus said he'd come back before those he was speaking to had died. The early church went nuts trying to fix that failed prophesy. Had he been real, he could of at least told his followers that disease was caused by "germs" and taught us how to make antibotics, that mental illness was not caused by demons but chemical imbalances in the brain. If he lived at all, he certainly wasn't divine or very intelligent about things not already known or believed during that time. Seems he couldn't or didn't even bother to write down anything himself, nor could his disciples. Not a word was written for decades after his supposed death and then only by educated greek authors who didn't even sign their names to what would become "the gospels." Paul never claimed to have seen or met jesus other than in a "vision" and his inclusion of gentiles went directly against the early christians who were converted jews. The rifts began early, they were many and have never ceased although millions have shed the blood of their fellow believers defending this or that inconsequential piece of fatuous dogma. The fact that the U.S. has so many people still clinging to this mythological nonsense is frankly astounding and a consequence of a high lack of critical thinking and very poor science education. BTW Mr. Barnett, I was also indoctrinated by my parents into christianity, but I grew up and actually read about its origins, learned about real science and now I live fully free of and unshackled by religion. I am no longer bound to its hateful message that a person is born sick and commanded to be well. I can use my own judgment evolved to live harmoniously with others to live a good and decent life, measuring my pleasure by the different I can make in other people's lives for the better and enjoying my one life I fortunately have to live. I don't feel the need to have everyone believe just like me or abide by anything other than our civil and criminal man-made laws. I can accept each person for who they are without prejudice. Your religion cannot give you anything like that. Just silly restrictions, hateful prejudice of others, false promises and nothing to back it up.

15) Comment by nimby? - 16/09/2012

Imagine ...

16) Comment by 1ryben - 16/09/2012

Since some things in the bible are true and factual, like places and such, therefore, the entire book must be true is quite silly. EVERY religion has those types of truths therefore they must be true and valid religions too right? It's your logic Mr.Barnett. Yet you cast those off. Look, you are one god short of being an atheist just like us. Use the same critical thinking and skepticism you use when denouncing the other gods and religions on the Jewish god to set yourself free of this nonsense. Why hold all religions to one standard but handle the one you were indoctrinated into with kitten gloves?

17) Comment by 1ryben - 16/09/2012

To say that attests resist the debate is so far off the mark. Look at the comments to any letter about religion. The last had over 200 entries!

18) Comment by 1ryben - 16/09/2012

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

19) Comment by chem - 16/09/2012

An excellent post greeneto. Barnett does exactly what most religious apologist do, taking words out of context, and trying to make it seem like something other than it is. Quite astute of you to point that out.

20) Comment by greeneto - 16/09/2012

You know - I posted that with numerous paragraphs. That's very irritating that the editor ran it all together.

21) Comment by greeneto - 16/09/2012

I always laugh when Christians trot out their anti-atheist rhetoric that is thoroughly filled with one straw man misrepresentation of atheism after another. It makes you wonder what that "absolute morality from a god" that they keep talking about actually contains? Does it contain some precept to use all manner of false statements about those who disagree with you to try to denigrate their position? If we go from James Barnett's example, it must. It's also funny to see the ironic nature of the rhetoric Barnett uses: "The only myths I keep reading are those constantly attributed as reason by atheists." Pretty funny, for a guy whose whole approach to the subject is based on a book that contains all sorts of religious myths, such as the myth of a worldwide flood around 4,300 years ago that wiped out all humans on the planet except for eight people who were magically saved on a big wooden boat (which, of course, is contrary to all relevant geological and archaeological evidence). Barnett: "The generalizations Polito uses in his letter are not to be seen as actions taken by all Christians." And "Christians are not all the same, as the atheists would like us to believe." Of course, atheists don't say that. Only Barnett is saying it, in his apparent dedication to invoke straw men. Barnett: "...that's 'pushing the religion down the throat,' the atheist would cry - not wanting to engage in debate." As if atheists don't engage in debate. Yep - another straw man. Barnett: "...it's a religion, because atheism bears a creed, practices of denial, factions within its body." Apparently Barnett thinks reason, critical thinking, and dealing with evidence constitutes a "creed." But if he wants to set himself up in opposition to the "creed" of reason, critical thinking, and dealing with evidence, then we atheists completely agree. That, in fact, is what we think is the real problem. Factions? Since there isn't actually any creed, there can't be any *atheism* factions, because atheism simply refers to not accepting the claim of the existence of some god because of see how lacking in any good evidence such claims are. Barnett: "Of course, religion is man-made - so what? ...quite a few other things are man-made - from philosophies to scientific treatises to houses, cars, rockets, books, TVs, computers, and on and on." Of course, the Wizard of Oz is man-made too, but there's a serious difference between fictional fabrications on the one hand, and the technological products built on scientific discoveries about the real world on the other. Barnett demonstrates with his piece of rhetoric here the great difficulty a lot of religious believers have in grasping the difference. Barnett: "I loved the big mistake mentioned in Polito's letter - that 'everything in the holy books has been debunked' by whatever means. That was a classic statement of untruth." I love how Barnett takes the inadvertant usage of one wrong word to change the subject and ignore all the specific debunked myths that Polito was actually referring to: Earth created 6,000 years ago, worldwide flood after that, virgin birth, coming back from the dead, demon possession, bad weather the result of supernatural curse (shades of Pat Robertson). After referring to all of these kinds of things, Polito wrote, "Everything in the holy books has been debunked by science, logic and reason." Bad wording. He should have said "All that supernatural mumbo jumbo" instead of "Everything." But leave it to people like Barnett to ignore the context and then completely miss the point. Barnett's capitalization on Polito's mistaken word: "Jerusalem exists. Rain exists. Love exists. Creatures exist. People exist. The Dead Sea exists ... on and on and on." So if a holy book contains some real things in it, that makes it true? Then Barnett should become a Mormon, because the Book of Mormon talks about Jerusalem, and, just as Barnett says, Jerusalem really exists. He should also become a Muslim, because the Quran talks about Bakkah (today called Meccah), which is a city that really exists. So if a holy book says even one thing that's true, that automatically makes all of it true. At least according to the rhetoric Barnett's using here. And these guys wonder why atheists have doubts about their capabilities in the correct reasoning department. Barnett finally gets around to actually demonstrating a tiny bit of nuanced understanding (very tiny): "One can see the beginning verses of Genesis and understand evolution - not accepting that 'day' means only 24 hours, as most fundamentalists would." Well, we have no doubt that after geologists discovered that the planet has actually been around far, far longer than just 6,000 years or so, *then after that* a lot of Christians just reinterpreted the Bible figuratively so as to try to not have it perceived as being in conflict with known facts about the world. (Shades of the geocentrism controversy.) But that had everything to do with the results of geological science and nothing to do with "One can see the beginning verses of Genesis and understand evolution." This is obvious, because if "one could see" that in the Bible, then why did no one ever see anything like that at all until science came along? And notice how Barnett didn't even attempt to explain how the Adam and Eve story enlightens us about the evolution of humans from primate ancestors. Don't get me wrong. If Barnett wants to agree with atheists that the creation story, and the Noah story about a worldwide flood ("covered the highest mountain"), are religious myths, then we applaud his concession to the obvious truth. So why didn't he just say so?

22) Comment by ABayouBoy - 16/09/2012

"at"

23) Comment by ABayouBoy - 16/09/2012

I'm still amazed at the arrogance shown in these comments by the atheists. Is it any wonder that its becoming a dog eat dog world? I pity the kids....just look a the shape of the world we are leaving them.

24) Comment by ScotB - 16/09/2012

One more thought. That magical feeling of love for your wife, kids, family..... nothing special about that, either. It's just a soup of chemical reactions and neurons firing. Kinda sad, huh?

25) Comment by ScotB - 16/09/2012

What I continue to find interesting is thinking about what it must be like to be an atheist in today's society. Judging from the insulting comments by the non-believers, it is obviously frustrating. To "know" that only science is rational, intelligent thinking and see the majority of the people around you believing in something that empirical evidence cannot prove is obviously maddening, indeed. Peace, brothers.

26) Comment by quirkmaguirk - 16/09/2012

Guys/ Gals, freethinkers, one again I come to the party to late and shake my head in disbelief at the views of so many of this community, and then I read the comments section. I appreciate all of you (freethinkers), taking your time to spread the love and rationality that I hope one day will rule this state, country, and world. All praise be to FSM, Ramen.

27) Comment by chem - 16/09/2012

Ya gotta love these conservative religious types. They cannot make a cogent, lucid argument for their myths so they fall back on the old tried and untrue "just look around you." Or the ever popular, "god said it, I believe, that settles it."

28) Comment by potkcalb - 15/09/2012

I still suspect that you are just making this stuff up Phil, but at least it provides some levity among all of these weighty and serious comments.

29) Comment by palefire - 15/09/2012

Yes, Phil, look at the Universe surely Chirakan-Ixmucane had a part in it all. Or maybe it was Allah, or Baiame, or Tagaloa. With reasoning like you display (Idon't know, therefor [insert god here]) there is little shock at the hundreds of creation myths in the world.

30) Comment by phil - 15/09/2012

There is a God. Just look around. Look at the universe, the planets, the birds, the flowers, and us humans just for starters. Certainly you cannot believe all of this just developed on its own out of nothing.

31) Comment by prbeav - 15/09/2012

Indoctrinators intend to indoctrinate children so that the children will believe that they, in particular, are God’s people; because of the community in which they are being reared. If the child accepts, “I am God’s child,” all the rest of the doctrine will be taken for granted, unless there is a drastic encounter.>> When I worked to persuade myself that I was among the “called and elect,” I spoke only those portions of the doctrine that I could attest to. For example, during the Catholic mass, I hoped someone nearby would call me to the side and ask, why do you say “Christ HAS come again,” while God’s people state, “Christ WILL come again?” I would have happily answered, “We resurrect Jesus every time we behave according to His teachings,” (without explaining that about the second coming I would have to admit, “I do not know”).>>Finally, I realized indoctrination prevents achievement of psychological maturity, which in the end of my seventh decade I feel is just around some more corners.>>Plato’s allegory of the cave, available online, helped. My interpretation: 1) when you live among like minded people, you share their errors; 2) only a major disruption of your short life will present the opportunity to escape; 3) if you escape, you would share the enlightenment with your group; 4) however, they think you have lost your mind and dust you off; 5) they must encounter their own life changing experience. I have never read or heard an interpretation that agrees with mine. The point is, the allegory might inform according to your interpretation.>>Hopefully, Barnett’s letter feedback will tell him he makes some sense among some Catholics, but if he wants to count himself among a more inclusive entity, like the one defined in the preamble to the US Constitution as “We the People of the United States,” some adjustments in appreciation for non-Catholics, and moreover, appreciation for non-theists, may seem attractive to Barnett and other fans of Christianity in particular and religion in general.

32) Comment by SuzanneMS - 15/09/2012

Body of atheists? There is no "body" of atheists. No membership. No dues. No organization. No central authority. No synods. No priesthood. And give that -- there can be no creed. No practices of denial or otherwise. No tests of faith. No excommunication. I find this letter particularly sad, because the author clearly had to resort to nonsense and absurdity to defend his own faith. For instance, he uses the fact that Jesus is not found anywhere in the historical record as evidence that he not only existed but was widely know. Monty Python couldn't have done better. I would remind him, and all like him, of Matthew 6:5-6 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." In other words, keep your religion private and out of public life.

33) Comment by prbeav - 15/09/2012

On reading Mr. Barnett’s letter, I sense deep indoctrination “into the faith,” a pertinent part of which is reflected in 1 Peter: “10 Therefore, my brothers and sisters,[a] make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” For all I know, death is not the end of life (though I doubt eternal life).>>However, I am neither “called” nor “elected” and am happy to know it. I am among the non-theist citizens of the United States and demand justice as claimed by the nation: I demand no establishment of religion itself and Christianity in particular. That means I do not encounter in civic settings that elusive phantasm people of diverse religious beliefs call “God.” By asserting that their intellectual constructs or whatever they imagine controls existence, they are in denial of reality. What they believe is their business. That they impose the consequences on me, a United States citizen, is the tyranny I work (read and write) to defeat.

34) Comment by chem - 15/09/2012

"Jesus was known far and wide, but as a condemned criminal of the Roman government, his teachings would just be seen as farcical and stricken from governmental proceedings." That statement is nonsense. The bible talks of jesus' preaching and miracles being known far and wide. He sent out the 12 and then the 70. So jesus started off with a virgin birth. Seems like everyone would have known about that and a number of people would have recorded that. But there is nothing. He fed the masses with loaves and fish. Another miracle that would have been recorded by many. But again, nothing. And then the penultimate miracle, rising from the dead. That surely would have been recorded by many, but there is nothing. And even if someone had missed that doozy, when he rose from the dead, so did many others. Formerly dead people were back alive walking around and talking. But guess what. Nothing was recorded about that. Very suspicious.

35) Comment by chem - 15/09/2012

Well, James Barnett, you sure seem to be quite upset that someone called religion what it is — utter nonsense. Apparently you think that atheists are try to shove their belief down your throat. However, Mr. Barnett, atheists are not trying to teach "atheism" to children in school. The religious fundamentalists have succeeded in getting religion taught to children using tax dollars. I call that shoving it down peoples throats. All of the supernatural nonsense concerning religion has been debunked by science. The letter to which you refer gave several examples. Try reading the letter again before you go off half-cocked.

36) Comment by miffedone - 15/09/2012

As others before me have said, "Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby." I wonder if Mr. Barnett believes in Thor, the god of Thunder. No? Then he is an "atheist" in that respect, isn't he? Doesn't be "believe" that there's no such entity? How about Ra, the Sun God? Vishnu? Athena? Zeus? It's easy to be an atheist. You just have to not believe in one more imaginary figure than the "true believers" do.

37) Comment by Bouncer - 15/09/2012

rgeraldwallace: As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about and prove once more the truth of Alexander Pope's observation that "a little learning is a dangerous thing." Revolutionize the study of language like Chomsky did and then you can mouth off. If the truth be told, you had no idea who he was until you looked it up in Wikipedia. Speaking of empty....I see no substance whatsoever in your rejoinder. I do not see even a scintilla of "fear" of Mr. Barnett's letter. However, I do see quite a bit of astonishment and incredulity.

38) Comment by [e-mail] - 15/09/2012

My goodness, so many people afraid of Mr. Barnett's letter regarding that of Mr. Polito; such vitriol can only be attributed to a sort of anachronistic herd instinct that is alive, well, and apparently directing the mass of atheists in their defense of....., well, let's be charitable and call it their lack of belief instead of their beliefs. As for the reference to "Chomsky's famous sentence", it is as empty as Chomsky himself and is worth just as much to the human race. I won't try to define that worth.

39) Comment by chem - 15/09/2012

"One can see the beginning verses of Genesis and understand evolution..." What has this guy been smoking?

40) Comment by ex-louisianian - 15/09/2012

Pardonnez-moi, "quel horreur"

41) Comment by ex-louisianian - 15/09/2012

Every previous poster is correct in his assessment of this letter. Quel horrerur.

42) Comment by Spudaroonski - 15/09/2012

Mr. Barnett says "of course religion is man made". That is about the only thing in his screed that made any sense. If only he actually believed it. And no one is laughing at the notion that atheism is a religion. We're laughing at you.

43) Comment by Bouncer - 15/09/2012

I might come back to this later. Probably not. For the time being, all I can say is never has so little been said in so many words. Some of the letter isn't even comprehensible English....it's just words strung together. Sure, it fits the grammatical pattern of English, but the sense is missing, sort of like Chomsky's famous sentence, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

44) Comment by potkcalb - 15/09/2012

The claim that atheism is a religion is hopelessly ignorant, a naive attempt to equate lack of belief in the supernatural with belief in the supernatural, thus putting it on a par with religion. No intelligent person is being fooled by this embarrassing creationist ploy.

45) Comment by Bighug - 15/09/2012

Mr. Barnett apparently assumes that "religion" equates only to Christianity, since that is the only one of the thousands that exist that he mentions. OK, he does mention atheism. I believe 2+2=4. Is that also a religion? Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

46) Comment by gary - 15/09/2012

James, thanks for clearing everything up. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny rides again. That mean ole Polito fellow had me worried.

47) Comment by palefire - 14/09/2012

I'm shaking my head at your comprehension or lack thereof. I don't know where to begin. Let's just take this one paragraph at a time. First, your interpretation of “pushing the religion down the throat,” is entirely off base rendering that whole paragraph incomprehensible. Second, a creed is a belief. By definition atheism is lack of belief — not quite the same thing. Of course with your definition of "religion" we will have to come up with the names for all the religions of people that don't believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, dragons, and so on. Third, Jesus was not known far and wide during his time. He was so little known that not one historian during his life time mentions him. In fact he was so little known that Paul had to go around spreading his word. Fourth, I don't think that's what Polito meant by "man-made" at all. I'm thinking of more of the lines of it as being like fiction. That sort of man-made. Fifth, his claim that everything in the bible has been debunked is crazy. Unless it was hyperbole. But I don't think he was talking about rain, Jerusalem, and the Dead Sea. He was probably talking about things like: so much rain that it flooded the earth, or the sky turning dark in the middle of the day in Jerusalem that nobody reported, and the parting of the Red Sea. Yeah sorry, I don't know much about what happened with the Dead Sea. Christians aren't all the same, and neither are atheists. In fact, atheists only share one thing in common: lack of belief in God or the supernatural. Also, atheism isn't modern and isn't a philosophy (LOL). Other than that, fantastic letter sir.