For me this is what TMA forums are all about - no point having debates if everyone has the same viewpoint... perhaps, eventually, if us and people like us keep on having these debates humankind may whittle down its differences and find a consensus common enough to work with.

I certainly have no problem whatsoever with individual beliefs. The moment we start censoring people for that we are well on the way to Orwell's dystopian nightmare where certain people decide what is 'right' and 'wrong' above the standard requirements for a civilised society. My own interest revolves around how humankind attempted to relate the wonder of the natural world to everyday existence during prehistory, before complex social structures allowed certain groups to dominate the outlook of others. This is why I am constantly drawn to places where the raw primeval essence of the landscape, weather systems etc has most effect on the human psyche. That these places also often are the locations for the earliest monuments I feel is no coincidence.

Where I draw the line, and what I will resist until it's no longer possible to resist, is where religion - i.e. the unsubstantiated views of others - is used collectively to justify the enforcement of views upon other people - e.g 'these Africans are heathen savages because they do not believe in the one true Christian God and must be educated accordingly', or 'infidels who do not accept the Koran must be destroyed'. Or even Dawkins' 'if you believe in God you are deluded'. Enforcement is the key word here. Freedom of choice must be preserved for any idea to be worth more than jack. What IS acceptable, indeed desirable in my opinion, is to present arguments for viewpoints, publish the evidence and let people choose for themselves, and this is where Dawkins and other scientists come out on top for me. Whether this will ever be compatable with humankind is a moot point. Look at the problems Darwin had. Challenging the existing power structure isn't on, old boy.

Even the so-called 'atheistic' totalitarian states of Hitler and Stalin were very heavilly quasi-religious, ostensibly doing away with God but employing a messianic, infalliable father figure instead. Heard that one somewhere before. Hitler was fond of quoting he believed he was 'guided by the hand of providence', had the cooperation of the church in his Jewish pogrom and even had "Gott Mit Us' emblazoned on the belt buckle of every Wermacht soldier. And as for the SS.... was there ever a more typecast pagan sect? Stalin's 'Mother Russia'?

What I object to most is having leaders such as Blair and Bush invoke organised religion to justify damaging actions in my name. What they believe privately is absolutely fine, since we elect them for their actions, not how they come to decisions. Churchill needed the old liquor, but since the outcome of his policy was successful the ends justified the means. I don't care if Cameron consults the three witches out of Macbeth - or even bloody Hamish Macbeth - if his actions are to our benefit. How many times have I seen the Daily Mail quote 'this is a Christian country with Christian Values' - whatever they might be - to justify policy. No problem if the Christian theocracy - or Moslem etc etc could provide any rational evidence whatsoever for their beliefs being the only option. Dawkins, on the other hand, does. And according to that rag HE is the bigot... imploring people to think for themselves. Some crime. Lock him up with Russel Brand and Wossy.

So no criticism whatsoever of you, June. My beef is with those who cynically use organised religion to gain and hold power over others and somehow expect that they cannot be challenged. I cannot call myself a true atheist since I would be quite happy to change my views if/when(?) religion presents cohesive arguments with rational, hard evidence. However what I currently see is organised religion making a lot of money out of the fear and alienation of many people across this planet, stating that blind faith and obediance is the only way. I disagree.