No, and absolutely no. There is no evidence for such thinking. And such thinking is by its very nature naive, defeatist and hostile to inquiry, which is what religion amounts to and asks of you; do not ask why.

“Most people embracing atheism do so without considering this. They make a snap personal decision without a logical approach.”

Which is what I would have expected you to say, and is completely wrong. It is no coincidence that atheists are represented by some of the most intelligent people alive. While by contrast, religion thrives on ignorance, fueled by fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst a predominantly ignorant following.

It’s strange, but most people assume I’m an atheist, and in a way I suppose I am by default, because I oppose all theistic contrivances. I don’t see myself as an atheist, I see myself as someone who sees things clearly and applies logic and objectivity as best I can.

I am aware of my own feelings on any given subject, but I can subtract that from the equation and run the numbers in their absence, arriving at a clean and logical outcome, regardless of how that outcome might come into conflict with my own feelings.

Having run the numbers, religion simply does not add up. But at the same time, the atheists have hit their own barrier of perception, too. So don’t expect me to leap to the defense of atheists!

However, both the theists and the atheists have missed something and both are wrong in one way or another. There is something else, and I don’t think either party is going to be happy with the final outcome.

The problem is, those of religion cannot ever be truly logical or rational, since their entire way of viewing the world is forever tinted by their beliefs.

Ask a man what colour the world is to him, when he wears rose-tinted spectacles.

I see the world as it is, not how I’d prefer it to be. And because of that, there is no colouration of what I see, certainly none that I cannot willingly remove.

So the problem for all religious people is that their grasp of logic is fundamentally flawed and weak because it is diluted and discoloured by their beliefs, and will always be interpretative, rather than being based on purely observational findings.

It’s like when I explain the difference between data and information, which nearly always results in: “But data and information are the same thing!”

No they’re not.

Data is what you begin with — the raw numbers. Information is what happens to data — when it’s formatted. I see the data and the information separately, while for you and those like you, data is often an inconvenience, which has to be formatted into information, within the context of your beliefs.

And therein lies the fatal flaw of all religions. And it is a flaw not one of you can ever hope to overcome. And this is why no child should be exposed to any religious teachings until after the age of 18, or we risk forever crippling their mental faculties for rational thought and reasoning.

With all due respect to yourself and your brother, there is something common to yourselves as well as most others who believe in one religion or another that predisposes you to fail in your application of logic, or to suspend logic and reason, for the sake of securing eternal comfort, which is what religion purports to offer.

I suspect it is a fear response to something in your lives, which forces you to gravitate towards a theistic conclusion because your rational mind is incapable or unwilling to accept observation. This discomfort with reality is well documented in psychology, it’s called Cognitive Dissonance.

Consider most born-again Christians, for example. Almost without exception, they have undergone a relatively terrible trauma in their lives, one they simply couldn’t deal with rationally. So to them, religion is the only thing that makes sense. Why? Because they lack the mental faculties for rational, introspective thought that would help them overcome such trauma.

Brian, religion is a social construct designed purely to facilitate control over the minds of men. You will never find any deeper meaning than you would from staring at a cloud in the sky.

Having said that, interestingly, at the most basic level we do appear to be constructed from the same building blocks - perhaps even by design? On this matter, did you see the videos I linked to on Twitter the other day? (’The Language Of God - A Believer Looks at the Human Genome’ (Francis Collins): http://bit.ly/3jcmM) Pour yourself a beer. It’s well worth watching for the science, if not the religion.

There is more evidence that God exists than there is evidence to the contrary. Most people embracing atheism do so without considering this. They make a snap personal decision without a logical approach. (I’m not suggesting you’ve done this - I think you’re far too intelligent.)

When I left school, I stopped believing in God, and for a while told myself that there was no such thing, that we didn’t need a God, how could such a thing exist, etc. When I stopped, thought about it rationally, did my own investigation, and started to consider the evidence, I changed my mind.

My brother has a PhD in theoretical physics. You couldn’t meet a more rational, logical person than him. He’s a believer, too. We both came to the decision independently - it wasn’t a collusion.

I think to suggest that religion makes people conceited, arrogant, and misguided is perhaps a little unfair. Maybe such accusations should be directed at those who follow Barnsley FC instead of Manchester United?

Anyway, sorry, Wayne, I seem to have dragged your post a little off-topic!

The issue of dogs to humans is societal, as between kith & kin. Aside from the much allusive acts of altruism, which may yet be explained from the point of view of self-perpetuation, acts of kindness between species is rare to none existent, unless humans act as an intermediary, or are directly involved.

Fundamentally, the bible misleads people into the belief that humans are separate and quite different to animals — humans are not unique. Not in the least.

And this is at the heart of the problem; our conceit and misguided belief that we are a divine creature gives us the perception of dominance without fear of consequential substantial losses, the kind that we’re experiencing right now, as we damage the Earth and its ecosystem.

I can only be logical and objective. But religion is neither of those things and it angers me that we allow such systems a free reign, to do as they wish.

And I know you’re not being confrontational.

“I would be keen to have you provide me examples of kindness, fondness (beyond those of mother to offspring) and philosophical reflection in the animal kingdom.”

There are some examples of what might be interpreted as kindness and fondness in animals, particularly in their interactions with us: a dog’s fondness (some would say love) for it’s master is one; a weaker one might be the way cats often appear to bring back food for us - an act of kindness in return for ours to them.

It almost certainly isn’t the case, but this latter example does seem to suggest a weird kind of philosophical reflection on the cat’s part!

“There is no justice in nature, be it divine, poetic or otherwise. Life in the natural world, far away from man really is the survival of the fittest — the polar opposite of what your religion teaches you.”

Religion doesn’t teach that at all. The concepts of justice and belief can’t be applied to the animal kingdom because they don’t have a choice - everything ‘lesser animals’ do is governed by instinct and need, not logically thought-out sets of decisions.

We are the only creatures blessed with real choice and full knowledge of what we are doing. It’s through us and our actions that good and evil motivations become absolutely real. If you don’t believe me, do a few quick Twitter searches and you should easily find a few streams that represent both.

You’re right that arrogance and conceipt will be our undoing!

(Btw, none of the above is meant to be confrontational, Wayne, so apologies if it reads that way!)

“Personally, it saddens me that we even believe we have the right to make that decision.”

The point I’m making is, it’s our arrogance that leads us to assume such things are our choice (an arrogance, I might add, that is derived from our feeble-minded religious teachings) to preside over the fates of all animals.

Natural laws are the final arbiters, not man.

“As for the meek inheriting the earth, well, don’t you think there’s a certain poetic justice to the idea that the ones who are aggressive, violent, arrogant, selfish, etc. may ultimately be the losers in the greatest game of all?”

I would be keen to have you provide me examples of kindness, fondness (beyond those of mother to offspring) and philosophical reflection in the animal kingdom.

There is no justice in nature, be it divine, poetic or otherwise. Life in the natural world, far away from man really is the survival of the fittest — the polar opposite of what your religion teaches you.

The fact of the matter is, we are the only animal that exhibits those attributes in abundance, and that has the time to indulge such aspects of their persona.

There is no such thing as good or evil because there is no evidence for or of such things in nature.

We do things for only 3 reasons: 1. pleasure, 2. profit, 3 self-perpetuation.

To assume that the entire range of mammalian emotions can be conveniently gathered up into the goblets of either good or evil is the very pinnacle of our arrogance and conceit.

And it is that arrogance and conceit that will be our undoing…

Should they be left to die out? Every part of me wants to scream ‘no, save them!’ but there’s a lot more to it than that initial emotional reaction. Personally, it saddens me that we even believe we have the right to make that decision.

Now to touch on the religious stuff:

In the context of the Bible, meekness is not weakness! It refers to a humility of spirit, gentleness, and consideration - the opposite of arrogance and aggression.

As for the meek inheriting the earth, well, don’t you think there’s a certain poetic justice to the idea that the ones who are aggressive, violent, arrogant, selfish, etc. may ultimately be the losers in the greatest game of all?

I think you are right to say “we are at a point in time where we are beyond incremental changes” and that “to save the planet from the human race, we must undertake extreme and exceptional measures”.

However, I disagree strongly with your assertion that “no one is listening”. Someone could be listening very closely to everything we say and do.

In fifteen years or so, it will be 2000 years since Christ ‘died’. A nice round number to pop by and pay us a call, don’t you think? After all, he did say he’d be back …