It bothers me when other atheists are too quick to do away with the beauty religion cultivates, as if it were necessary to toss the beauty out right along with the cosmology. I think we make a mistake when we fail to distinguish the form from the content of religion.
Where there is an absence of formal doctrine, the couple has to think for themselves. The absence of traditional wording can leave space for a more spontaneous and heartfelt expression of love.
The performance in question has Dawkins stumbling, uncharacteristically, when pressed to give the full title to Darwin's major treatise "On the Origin of Species." Dawkins declared that he'd been "ambushed" by the question.
As I sat in my study at home one day with my head in my hands, God said, "I will take care of you." That voice spoke. My brain registered the exact words.
Between the extremes, there is a possibility: that all religions are partly true, depending on how they are interpreted.
Criticism of religious beliefs isn't a new thing; its legacy is as long as the existence of religion itself, and it rests of the backs of outspoken religious leaders like Martin Luther, Mahatma Gandhi, MLK and even the biblical Jesus Christ.
As for those social conflicts, those aren't conflicts--in my opinion--between science and religion. They're conflicts between Christians and atheists or Christians and secularists:
I have no doubt that Christopher Hitchens will have an afterlife. As one of the most original and provocative writers of his generation, his words will continue to mesmerize, incite, confound, and entertain.
Christopher followed a distinguished line of talented Brits who made their home in the United States. His choice of America was conscious and decisive, and he became an American citizen in 2007. But he was also unmistakably English.
What happens to an atheist when he dies? No one can answer that question with certainty. However, we can and should reflect on how this extraordinary author, intellectual and provocateur faced death before he died.
Hitchens made rockstars seem small, as well as politicians or celebrities -- because his power wasn't something that was easily quantifiable or electable, he didn't have to pander to anyone for respect.
Christopher was never a man to back away from a confrontation on behalf of what he considered basic decency. Yet it would be wrong to remember only the confrontational side.
I am convinced that atheists -- at least the ones I have read and the ones I know -- are working largely with conceptual idols when it comes to their rejection of God. They are not rejecting God; they are rejecting ideas.
Imagine if we were all able to treat our neighbors with the same kind of patience and love that we show once a year. It shouldn't matter who you are and what you believe.
Quite often, what makes us happy and what is actually good for us are directly at odds with each other. What worked for us evolutionarily over the mil...
This idea that nonreligious people do not gather, both as a moral community and in cooperation with the religious, is entirely without merit.