"the United States is relatively devout and markedly violent. The roots of violence and amorality are many, but atheism is not one of them."_____________ Amen to that! Rather than violent and amoral, I would characterize America as "bloodthirsty". We love violence on TV (but NOT sex, heaven forbid); we have a very high rate of violent crime, although it's coming down lately; we are forced to incarcerate the greatest fraction of our population of any country in the world; we embrace capital punishment; we own lots of guns and love to hunt; we are never happy unless we are "at war" with something, if not an actual nation, like Iraq, then terrorism, poverty, drugs, cancer, etc. I don't know why we are so violent, but I doubt that religion or lack thereof is the source of our bloodthirstiness.

There is actually a 3rd category of person...one who is highly moral, in the sence of kind, generous, willing to lend a hand to someone in trouble, who perhaps in his heart of hearts does believe in, and talk to, a higher entity, but who simply doesn't go about flaunting his "righteousness", and trying to push his belief system down others throats. And I think there are many of this category out there. And trustworthy?? These folks are far and away more reliable and trustworthy than those spouting off about their religious beleifs. And there'a very good reason: They must always be able to justify thier behavior, GOOD OR BAD, in terms of REALITY. Whereas a so-called religious person can justify anything they do as "God told me to do it". It can be from one end of the spectrum to the other --Osama Bin laden and his gang saying that God is telling them to kill people, to Catholics who say that God tells them that gays are condemned to hell, and not worthy of eaqual treatment. These folks are extremely untrustworthy because they can do ANYTHING, and go in any direction they want to at any minute, and simply just say "God told me to do it". That's why they are not only untrustworthy, but EXTREMELY dangerous.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones one of the titanic figures of twentieth - century Christianity would call an athiest a fool. Pick up his book Seeking the Face Of God for a couple bucks on Amazon and read the first chapter The Folly of Unbelief. After make your own decisions but you may find you'll agree. Next check out these beautiful biblical paintings that have just been completed by a young Maine artist. If a picture tells a thousand words - you'll be truely inspired. http://www.etsy.com/shop/JCStilesArt?section_id=6986374

As a devout Atheist(pun intended) who also happens to be a fifth-generation American, I could give example after example of the biases I come across on a daily basis. Instead I'll merely reprint the words of the great Arthur C. Clarke: "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." I'd type more, but I'm presently debating a religious fanatic on another board who insists that there be no interpretation of the Constitution but somehow ignores Article VI which plainly states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Dannon, And, of course, your god advised you to begin the name calling, and saying that atheists are "fools". Honestly, you can set your watch by you folks, the way you always respond with your "loving kindness". Your unbelievably predicatble in a very, very bad way.

I believe the most pure form of ethics and morality comes from within. If you need the threat of eternal punishment to make you act in moral ways, you are not truly a good person. You would simply be God-Fear'in. To those that say it's impossible to be good on your own and that to claim it's possible is to deny your basic humanity (which is inherently evil) I say speak for yourself.

Well, that's a very interesting turn of the worm. You posit a question based on the lack of trust by religious people toward atheists and then you make it the fault of religious people that there is a lack of trust based on philosophical differences. Perhaps the distrust comes from constant harangue by atheists that they are "offended" by displays of religious messages in public venues. They feel "offended." They feel pressure to conform or what ever other spurious argument they care to bring up. As a matter of logic, it seems to me, all those arguments are nonsense based on the very beliefs that atheists hold so dear. Religion is a fanciful tale that makes people feel better but can not be the explanation for any phenomena because it is a fiction. This is the equivalent of Dan Quayle arguing about the philosophy of Murphy Brown. Its like saying you are offended because a pigeon took a crap on your car. If you really believe that religion is meaningless, then why would object to the village idiots who practice that belief or air it out in public. I haven't read any stories of atheists being kidnapped and taken into churches. Last I checked, there is no proselytizing in public schools, at town meetings or in the city council chambers. No, your objection is based on a spurious reading of the establishment clause and a letter some slaveholder wrote to a bunch of Baptists (how ironic, eh?) And if you are going to use the Danbury letter as the foundation of your argument, then you can figure out how to reconcile the last line "I reciprocate your kind prayers..." with Jefferson's role as President of the United States. It will never occur to you, apparently, that the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE thereof..." You can not rely on the federal jurisdiction to enforce your fanciful interpretation of that statement. Simply put it is not a federal matter. The state level is a different matter, but every time an atheist uses the federal framework to define THEIR right to interdict my rights, it only builds distrust. Ye reap what ye sow.

Atheism is another religion. Just change the word atheism for religion x or y and you'll see my point. Therefore atheists shouldn't complain. It's fair game. Agnostics don't have that problem because when they are asked about the existence of God, they don't answer yes or no. Their response would be "I can't make statements about the absolute."

A part of this argument or controversy if you will, is with respect to organized religion practiced by man. There is some disagreement as to how Atheists and Agnostics view organized religion vs. the idea of God however you would define God. With respect to organized religion most Atheists will tell you that any five-year-old knows they are stories, myths and rules made by man. If an Agnostic says for example he/she doesn't know about the divinity of Jesus then that means they would consider it (a view that Atheists see as nonsense.) If the Agnostic says they don't believe in organized religion but say they don't know about the possibility of some Creator however undefined - I think that Atheists in general respect that view. Who knows? What you don't mention of course are those Atheists who not only don't believe in organized religion and don't believe in any God or any afterlife, but are actually against the idea of organized religion and could be called Anti-theists. (Which is a separate category). You are correct that Atheists don't have any proof that there is no God or afterlife just that there is no proof of those things exist either.

Actually, people try to proselytize in governmental locations and events often. When they get challenged, they blame the atheists, rather than the religionists. Take the recent example of Jessica Alquist and Cranston School Committee. No one is stopping you from speaking or praying, but the minute anyone tries to stop the government from endorsing religion, religionists hurl accusations of impeding free expression. It's not _your_ expression secularists want to stop, its governmental expression of religion.

If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.

This is the latest lesson on American pluralism. Since we no longer can claim any ethnic heritage, there is now a socially imposed value system that requires moral equivalence of all beliefs. This is truly a sad day for our nation. Human beings, are predisposed to congregate among similar types. People of the same color, or who speak the same language, go to the same church, or even hang out at the same bar are naturally inclined to come together. This is how tribes turned into nations. NEW PARAGRAPH: We are now being told that greater comfort with people more like me makes me a bigot. I just do not buy into this. Now, every tribe must face a "civil rights" movement, because some people are not as comfortable with people who are different in some way. We are again turning into a tribal society, and being forced to accept all belief systems as equally valid. America is in decline, and this is one of the big reasons why.

I support Cook's call that Americans move to "confront its prejudice toward those who do not believe in a supreme being." I am deeply disappointed that non-believers are vilified for their absence of belief, and for any implication that they are somehow lesser members of American society for that non-belief. Our nation's founding principles define that we have 'freedom of worship,' and to some Americans, freedom 'from' worship is just as treasured a right. Gervais' work found that ". . . without a belief in God, atheists lack a moral compass" and provoke "distrust". I strongly oppose that suggestion, and consider it groundless. Look to our leaders to see how their belief has served them, and see how they have failed to maintain their 'moral compass'. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich are just two who've failed there. Don't blame religion or the lack thereof. Blame the individual for the individual's actions.

Thanks for the column Gareth. I was beginning to fear that we were running out of victims groups. By the way, if you spend any amount of time with comments on boston.com and bostonglobe.com you'll find many instances where Atheist ridcule, deride, and attack believers of all kinds. So I guess that it's a two-way street. A little more courtesy would work wonders.

There is a whole group of people who simply couldn't care less. We think anyone who argues about the existence of God one way or the other is simply wasting their time. This opinion piece speaks to us.

People generally accept that being a closeted person is a bad thing. Having to hide one's true self in order to "fit in" has led to closeted gays, Jews, even light skinned black people. But I posit, the biggest closet of all is the closet that holds many atheists. They simply feel uncomfortable making this information public for fear of backlash. It's pretty brave to be an "out" atheist in America.

I agree that a little more courtesy could work wonders with reasonable people,but I wonder if you see that as a two way street. You know full well that the only group that our elected officials can still berate without fear of being critized by the news media, liberal or conservative, are atheists. This newspaper gave John Silber a half page in its' opinion section not that long ago to condemn atheists as the cause of all the worlds problems. Do you really think that they would allow anyone to do that about any religion?