To what extent does the following article, written by an atheist, hit the nail on the head...........?

It misses the point. The lack of visability of the ';Invisible God'; in a nation is in no way representative of the lessening of His influence or presence and even trying to equate God to a societal element or human emotional problem is not hitting a nail on the head.





Anger is not the issue, pride is. Pride of man in believing for one second that the rationale of a human being can ever begin to diminish God's Truth is a serious problem for a nation that was once a jewel of faithful believers.





The article implies that any form of zealousness is where all the problems of England's past stem, that too much excitement in such a confined space leads to all kinds of problems...that anger is the issue.





If anyone understood what Christ teaches, they would know that this is not even relevant. ';Love one another as I have loved you...Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.'; This is Christ's teaching, and if more people would actually listen and ';open their'; minds they would see that no amount of secularism could ever compare to the truth of Christ. The very society all people want is the kind based upon the teaching of Christ. Love is the issue, not anger.





The lack of adherence to Christ's teaching is the issue. To what extent does the following article, written by an atheist, hit the nail on the head...........?
I think it was a good article.





It makes a point for the UK that should be made for the US, but seldom is. When asked in a poll, something like 60% of Americans say they believe the Bible word-for-word. But not nearly that many Americans are really religious Christians, or believe in creationism, or whatever. They just say that because they identify with Christianity. Those who -do- believe, the small minority who attend church regularly and can cite their church's doctrines off the top of their heads, belong to a mishmash of denominations and often believe their own particular one is the only 'true' one, and that different views of the Bible are misguided. Yet they often count the other denominations when making the argument that some large percentage of Americans, 60 or 70 or 80%, are Christians.To what extent does the following article, written by an atheist, hit the nail on the head...........?
This is poetic licence and is basically a load of rubbish.The atheist does not believe in god not because theres no obvious evidence...but simply because he/she does not want to believe..it would then require that said person to answer to a higher force for their erroneous ways...to not be able to live their lives as disgustingly as possible with no conscience is what manily binds them to choosing this cop out.God does not exist so I can do what I like and who do I have to answer to...nobody..?..Easy peasy.
it is an issue ........it is a reward based believe system ...belief in a jealous omnipresent being that can listen to 6 billion individuals simultaneously and should you decide to question this omnipresent or omnipotent ghost you will meet your match called satan torture hellfire and eternal pain.
I didn't read the whole article, but the excerpt you provided was very poetic
I am pretty sure that I disagree because being an atheist I dont believe there is a god.



I don't think it hit the nail on the head, I think someone hit their thumb...
';rediculas artical';





ridiculous spelling.
rediculas artical
I think that it does have some relevancy,however I've seen better
Hmmm!!!!!!!!
I don't think that was written by an atheist.
The article is interesting but I'm wondering which nail you think it's hitting. It certainly points out the state of religion today but does little to persuade me to change my beliefs in a creator. There are two issues which run side by side, though this may not be so obviously apparent, religion and psychology. Both address the condition of 'man', or that which separates us from animals, consciousness or self awareness. The preaching of religion does little to draw me to it, rather puts me off, and the repeated failures of psychology/psychiatry are highlighted by the trend of creating new labels of mental disability each time psychology fails.


What I am sure about however, is that mankind does not know enough about itself, it's motives and it's reasoning for many of it's actions and I have observed that the 'scientific' way is riddled with failure, whereas the religious way is riddled with fanatics or those who believe they have a solution by not wishing to explore themselves further.


Having said that, we are left with three ways of dealing with our inadequacies or self discovery, religion, psychology or self learning.


So I maintain my stance that there is a creative force outside of the realm of the physical, that death is not the end, and that there is much, much more for me to learn about myself and this universe, and that by taking a 'side' between one of two systems riddled with failure I am limitting myself to the constraints of such systems. Religion is a personal thing and it's all about yourself, if you are happy being an atheist, then that is your right and should not be intruded upon, and the same is also true of religion.
It disagrees with the Holy Bible, so it's wrong, sorry.